“Section 56(2)(vii)(b)”

Section References (mined)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)(b)543 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 56(2)(vii)(b) is CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal (338 ITR 485), cited in 69 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 56(2)(vii)(b)

CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal

338 ITR 485 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

The revenue must prove that an assessee received extra consideration beyond the declared value; a Departmental Valuation Officer's (DVO) report alone is insufficient to establish such receipt.

Calcutta in Reliance Jute Industries Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer

150 ITR 643 · 1984 · High Court

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer (AO) is not required to refer the valuation to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) if the AO has conducted a detailed inquiry and is satisfied with the cost of construction. Strict adherence to procedural requirements is essential; failure to comply with mandatory conditions renders the assessment based on such non-compliance invalid.

Gateway Leasing (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT

117 Taxmann.com 442 · 2020 · High Court

citing judgments

A notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, is barred by limitation if the original assessment was completed under section 143(3).

Joseph Mudaliar v. DCIT

130 Taxmann.com 250 · 2021 · Reported

citing judgments

The amendment to section 50C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by inserting the third proviso through the Finance Act, 2018, is curative and applies retrospectively. This means the tolerance band for the difference between sale consideration and stamp duty value, introduced by this amendment, is applicable to earlier assessment years.

CIT v. MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD.

221 Taxmann 25 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

Assessments initiated without proper jurisdiction, such as under section 153C without the necessary foundation, are null and void and must be annulled.

Mubarak Gafur Korabu v. ITO

117 Taxmann.com 828 · 2020 · ITAT

citing judgments

Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which deals with income from acquisition of property for inadequate consideration, does not apply to agricultural land purchased by an assessee, as it is not considered a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Act.

Radha Kishan Kungwani v. ITO Ward

185 ITD 433 · ITAT

citing judgments

For the purpose of determining income under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) or 56(2)(x)(b), the stamp duty value or fair market value of immovable property is to be considered as on the date of payment made by the assessee towards booking of the property, where an agreement for purchase and payment of consideration has been made prior to the date of registration.

CIT v. Kay Arr Enterprises

299 ITR 348 · 2008 · High Court

citing judgments

A family arrangement or settlement does not give rise to any income. This is because it represents the working out of existing rights among family members rather than a transfer of property.

Judgments citing Section 56(2)(vii)(b)

Ketan Kumar Sagar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 85/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj MundraFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali(SR DR)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 56(2)(x)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J (SMC)”, MUMBAI BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MISS PADMAVATHY

Saggar Parimmal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 84/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj MundraFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali(SR DR)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 56(2)(x)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J (SMC)”, MUMBAI BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MISS PADMAVATHY

Nayab Siddiqui, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6329/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year 2017-18 Nayab Siddiqui Ito - 22(2)(1), Piramal Chamber, Parel, R.N. 704, Lakhpati Bhavan, Dr. Maharashtra-400012. Emoses Road, Mahalaxmi Opp. Vs. Satrast Masjid, Mumbai – 400011. Pan: Cqips 8499 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By : Shri Leyaqat Ali, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 250(6)Section 270ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

Rabin Arup Mukerjea, Mumbai vs. ITO, Int Tax Ward, 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on

ITA 5884/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n&\nSHRI AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 197Section 55Section 56Section 56(1)(vii)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Vaishali Vishwas Joshi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4425/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: ShriRavi Dasija, CAFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali (SR.DR.)

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 144BSection 147rSection 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

difference between the stamp duty valuation and the actual transaction value amounted to Rs.14,99,500/-, thereby attracting the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act.Consequently, the assessment was reopened, and a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued. The Ld. AO subsequently made ... addition under Section 69A of the Act, the entire discussion in the order primarily pertained to the confirmation of the addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act.Dissatisfied with the appellate order, the assessee has now filed an appeal before the ITAT challenging the said decision

ACIT, Central Circle-1, Nashik vs. Rajendra Rasiklal Shah, Nashik

ITA 1016/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1016/Pun/2024

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

paid only Rs.10.00 lakh for his share of 25% in the property, ld. AO was of the view that in terms of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act an amount of Rs.4,96,49,250/- deserves to be added in the hands of assessee. In the course ... assessee's contention that part payment made on 08.01.1997 is to be considered and held that First and Second proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act shall be applicable in the instant case and date of agreement fixing the consideration of Rs.30.00 lakh for the transfer

Rahul Tyagi, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 113/RPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.113/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Rahul Tyagi Golden Homes 13, New Vip Club, Shankar Nagar, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Aitpt6198H

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 124(1)Section 124(3)(a)Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Sai Keerti Constructions Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

ITA 299/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia(Hybrid Hearing) आ.अपी. सं / Ita Nos.296, 297, 298, 299, 300 & 301 /Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17)

Section 132Section 153A

Apex Court in the case of Sh. Sanjiva Lall vs. CIT dated 1/7/2014. In the same breath learned CIT(A) observed that section 56(2)(vii) (b) of the Act was not in the statute book in the year 2006 and therefore, the transaction cannot be taxed in the hands ... facts of this case. So also, he submitted that, as rightly observed by the learned CIT(A), the provisions under section 56(2)(vii) (b) of the Act were not there in the statute book in the year 2006 and therefore, no addition could be made in the hands

Haripriya Kotapati, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -2(1), Vijayawada

ITA 105/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri AV Raghuram & OrsFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 270ASection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(32)(vii)

purchase of the property, the stamp value of which is at Rs.1,70,47,000/-, (iii) As per the provisions of section 56(2) (vii) (b) the assessee has paid the consideration which the less than stamp duty value of the property by Rs.71,53,250/- (17047000-9893750] Therefore

Khudbuddin Dadepir Pirjade, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-41(4)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for stati...

ITA 6668/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Respondent: Mr. Ajay R. Singh

Section 56(2)(x)

property registration handed over, merely to get the clear title of the property registration was done in the March, 2018. Therefore, section 56(2)(vii)(b)/56(2)(x) was done in the March, 2018. Therefore, section 56(2)(vii was done in the March, 2018. Therefore, section 56(2 ... treated the difference o part of the assessee, the Assessing Officer treated the difference o ₹30,51,000/- as deemed income under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the as deemed income under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the as deemed income under Section 56(2)(vii)(b

Khudbuddin Dadepir Pirjade, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, 41(4)(2), Mumbai

ITA 6407/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Respondent: Mr. Ajay R. Singh

Section 56(2)(x)

Dashrath Kumar Sharma, Jpr, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 7(4), Jpr, Jaipur

ITA 647/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 647/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Dashrath Kumar Sharma 73, Pancholiya Ka Mohalla, Kanota, Jaipur – 303 012 बनाम The ITO Vs. Ward 7(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: EAJPS 0594A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate & राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by Shri Hemang Gargieya, Advocate :

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 68

Unexplained unsecure loan 18,00,000 5 Unexplained sundry creditors 10,00,000 6 Addition as per provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act 15,32,337 7 Income from other sources 38,76,456 Total assessed income 3,57,41,850 4. Aggrieved from

Sudha Agrawal, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(4)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 639/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: ShriAshish Thakur DesaiFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik(SR DR)

Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

above Grounds of Appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has challenged the addition made under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, which pertains to the difference between the registered value and the set forth value of Flat No. 904, Wing-H, Octacrest ... Kandivali East, Mumbai. The assessee's grievance is that the revenue authorities failed to duly consider the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) while making the addition of Rs.97,72,517/-, being the difference between the set forth value and the stamp duty valuation of the property. subsequent dates

ACIT Circle 22(1), Mumbai vs. Rajendra Narpatmal Lodha, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 6971/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kamble & Shri S.R

Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

return of income. The AO also called on the assessee to file the necessary details and to explain why addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) should not be made for the difference between the purchase value and the stamp duty value. The assessee, in response submitted that, the purchase ... final registration and handing over of the possession was ultimately done on 27/12/2016. Accordingly the assessee submitted that as per proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) the market value of the 3 ITA No.6971/Mum/2024- Rajendra Narpatmal Lodha property as on the date of allotment should be applied which

ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar vs. Sh. Tara Chand Gupta, Alwar

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

ITA 514/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम ACIT, Vs. Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Kesh

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR a

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Sh. Tarachand Gupta, Alwar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

ITA 449/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Ke

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR a

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Sh. Tarachand Gupta, Alwar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

ITA 448/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Sh. Tarachand Gupta, Alwar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

ITA 447/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

S Ramesh, Trunelveli vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3173/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3169/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Pothiraj, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acxpp-8538-R Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3170/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Mahesh, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6890-K Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3171/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Murugesh Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6963-D Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3172/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Ashok Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Mr. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 132Section 153CSection 250Section 270ASection 56(2)(vii)

addition made was based on deeming provisions, not due to underreporting by the assessee. The penalty should be deleted. The AO used Section 56(2)(vii)(b) to add the difference between the sale price and a valuation estimate by the DVO (District Valuation Officer). This estimate is not concrete ... pending adjudication before the Hon’ble High Court. In the instance case, the addition is made invoking deeming provision as per section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The only basis of addition is estimate made by the DVO. There is nothing on record to suggest that assessee

S Ashok, Tirunelvel vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3172/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 132Section 153CSection 250Section 270ASection 56(2)(vii)