← All Phrases

“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
69
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
23
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
20
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
18
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
16
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
14
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
14
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
13
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)

Shri C. Thangaraj, Tirupur vs. PCIT-3, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 382/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.382/Chny/2020 िनधा'रण वष'/Assessment Year: 2014-15 C. Thangaraj, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 1, Vaikkal Thottam, Palladam Income Tax - 3, Road, Tirupur 641 604. Coimbatore. [Pan:Abtpt5217E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (*+थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri A. Arjun Raj, C.A. By Virtual *+थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri N. Balakrishnan, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.11.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri A. Arjun Raj, C.A. by virtualFor Respondent: Shri N. Balakrishnan, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 263

facts and in the circumstance of the case the Income tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that invoking of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 is beyond the purview of the Assessing officer when the reason for limited scrutiny is 'purchase of property ... whether he could have set aside the assessment on the ground that the assessing officer did not invoke Section 56(2)(vii)b(ii). The reading of the assessment order shows that the case was selected for limited scrutiny only on this aspect regarding the sale consideration paid

Hbs View Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2246/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Seth, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. D/R
Section 24Section 56(2)(vii)

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates the taxation of the difference between the stamp duty value and the actual consideration ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) failed to take into account the amendment to Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) w.e.f. 1st April 2021, which further clarified the scope of the provisions relating to the taxation of the difference between the stamp duty

Valukko Infrastrusture Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 11(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1034/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 1034/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Danish Sheikh V/S. Ito International Tax, 18, Old Planters Road, बिाम Ward 4(2)(1) Beverly, Usa-999999 Kautilya Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Fjxps3005Q Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Pradip Kapasi राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 43CSection 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(vil)

order u/s 148A (d) and notice u/s 148 were totally ignored (Pg 29 of paper book). GROUND NO. 2 & 5: INAPPLICABILITY OF SECTION 56(2)(vii)(b) LAND AND/OR BUILDING NOT ACQUIRED-PREMISES UNDER CONSTRUCTION P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2016-17 Danish Sheikh Deeming fiction of the provision ... unaccounted funds employed. GROUND NO 6: BENEFIT OF PROVISO TO S.56(2) (VII)(B) DENIED WRONGFULLY The Provisos 1st and 2nd of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) provides that no addition should be made on account of the differencing Agreement Value and the Stamp Duty Value in cases where there

Smt. Vimla Tripathi, Kanpur vs. ITO Ward-1(2)(1), Kanpur

ITA 310/LKW/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Vimla Tripathi V. The Income Tax Officer 119/12 B-1, Darshanpurwa Ward 1(2)(1) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aevpt9734K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 31 12 2024 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.08.2023, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 01.01.2014, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,93,140/-. As Per Information Available With The Income Tax Department, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Noticed That The Assessee, Along With Shri Siddha Kumar Tripathi, Had Purchased An Agricultural Land Admeasuring 0.6200 Hectare On 01.08.2012 For A Consideration Of Rs.12,00,000/-. The Ao Further Noticed That The Market Value Of

For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

treated as deemed income of the assessee from other sources and added the same to the total income of the assessee under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. ITA No.310/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 10 3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the AO, the Assessee preferred ... Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in applying the Provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 applicable to Assessment Year 2013-14 ignoring the fact that appellant had paid consideration of Rs.6.00 lacs

Ranvijay Haldhar Singh, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appealate Centre, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5430/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. Tejas Sodha, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)

difference amount of Rs.5,13,500/- and hence his case squarely falls under the provisions of the above mentioned section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. 5 Mr. Ranvijay Haldhar Singh 7.5 The AO taxed the difference amount in the impugned assessment order as per the above deeming ... reason to interfere with the same. The addition of Rs.5,13,500/- made by the AO by applying the deeming provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act as applicable for the AY under consideration is therefore confirmed. Hence, this set of ground/s of appeal taken

Abhinav Malik, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-31(1), Delhi

ITA 3525/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanabhinav Malik Income Tax Officer, D 114, Saket, Ward-31(1), Delhi-110 017 Vs. Delhi. Pan:Aiypm6590K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Divya Gujral, Ca Department By Shriyogesh Kumar Nayyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/12/2024

For Appellant: (i) That the transaction in hand i.e., the property transacted located at 18, Bl
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 56Section 56(2)(vii)

circle rate of this property mentioned in the sale deed at Rs.2,31,68,140/. The AO noted the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and stated that where the person Abhinav Malik vs. ITO purchase an immovable property for a sale consideration which is less ... immovable property, the circle rate of which exceeds the sale consideration by a sum of Rs.1,11,68,140/-, therefore, provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) are clearly attracted. He required the assessee to explain through show cause notice, the assessee replied by letter dated 11/12/2018. The relevant reply

Pradip Manilal Kanakia, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Mum-C-(174)(1)), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5499/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri.B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Kirti SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

consideration of Rs.1,29,33,500/- was already started for payment from 2010. So, the assessee is falling under the Proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Here, the said section is reproduced as follows: - “56(2)(vii) where an individual or a Hindu undivided family receives ... impacted by the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, since it falls within the ambit of the proviso of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The Ld. AO erred by considering the stamp duty value of the agreement 5 ITA5761/Mum/2023 Amar Anil Turathia, Mumbai on31/03/2017.As

Satish Harnamdas Sethi, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3091/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pushkaraj Bhangepatil, Sr.AR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 56(2)(vii)

same may be quashed and set aside. 3. Addition under head income from other invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act unjustified - 1,41,89,511/-. i. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.1 ... under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act being difference between the actual purchase consideration and stamp authority valuation without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. The Appellant, therefore, prays that the addition of Rs.1,41,89,511/- is unjustified and the same may be deleted

Ashok Lakharam Vanjani, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 167/NAG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 56(2)(vii)

following grounds:– “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances, the learned AO erred in making an addition of Rs.5,86,500 under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) to total income of the assessee and the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the same. 2. Whether on the facts

Amar Anil Turakhia, Mumbai vs. Ward 24(1)(1), Piramal Chambers

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5761/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Kirti SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

consideration of Rs.1,29,33,500/- was already started for payment from 2010. So, the assessee is falling under the Proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Here, the said section is reproduced as follows: - “56(2)(vii) where an individual or a Hindu undivided family receives ... impacted by the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, since it falls within the ambit of the proviso of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The Ld. AO erred by considering the stamp duty value of the agreement 5 ITA5761/Mum/2023 Amar Anil Turathia, Mumbai on31/03/2017.As

Autope Payment Solutions Private Limited, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Delhi

In the result, ground nos

ITA 86/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar Nayyar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)

1 Autope Payment Solutions Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR

Shambhavee Shashikant Kadam, Andheri (West) vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4748/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 234BSection 56(2)(vii)Section 69

issue raised is against the provisions of law. (iii) Addition under the head "Income from Other Sources" invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act is unjustified. (iv) Addition by treating the purchase of residential flat as unexplained investment under section ... issued various notices calling for the assessee to show cause why the difference cannot be treated as addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The AO also issued notice requiring the assessee to furnish the source of funds for purchasing the property. The assessee did not respond

Mallesh Manthri, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 362/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.362 /Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Mallesh Manthri Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-15(1) [Pan :Akdpm3296M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Mohd.Afzal, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri R.Kumaran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 17/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.02.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2014-15 On The Following Grounds : 1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Against The Law, Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Erred In Confirming An Addition Of Rs.95,54,666/-, Which Was Made By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 56(2)(Vii)(B) Of The It Act.

For Appellant: Mohd.Afzal, ARFor Respondent: : Shri R.Kumaran, DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

case. 2. The learned Commissioner erred in confirming an addition of Rs.95,54,666/-, which was made by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the IT Act. 2 3. The learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the assessee is only a Power of Attorney holder ... value of the property as on the date of registration does not arise and therefore, the question of invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act does not arise. The Ld.CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee and also taking note of various facts

Shaha Finlease Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax 13(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4182/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(1)(viib)Section 68

fact in confirming addition of Ran 6,80,48,500 made by ld AO being addition of securities premium under section 56 (2) (vii)(b) without appreciating that shares were issued to existing shareholders as Right issue, hence provisions of section 56 (2) (vii)(b) are not applicable. 2 ... fact in confirming addition of Rs. 6,80,48,500 made by ld. AO being addition of securities premium under section 56 (2) (vii)(b) without appreciating that shares were issued at DCF Method. valued and certified by chartered accountant on 24.09.2012, hence, rule 11UA was not applicable, which came

Vaishnav Yashwant Ashtankar, Nagpur vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Nagpur 2, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 240/NAG/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 44ASection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

therefore, as this amount exceeded ` 50,000, the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act were attracted. The share of the assessee, as per purchase deed was 1/3rd which works out to ` 5,64,666 (1/3rd of ` 16,94,000), therefore, the Assessing Officer held that this ... Rs.1,19,79,000 1,02,85,000). Therefore, as this amount exceeded fifty thousand rupees, provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act were attracted. The share of the assessee, as per purchase deed was 1/3rd which works out to Rs.5,64,666/- (1/3rd

Yashwant Pandurangji Ashtankar, Nagpur vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Nagpur - 2, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 236/NAG/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

that in view of this he had objection in treating Rs.5,64.666/-, as income from other sources as per the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the IT Act. The assessee also relied on the following judgements stating that in these it was held that the difference ... supported the order passed by the learned PCIT and submitted that the Assessing Officer’s order is contrary to the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. He strongly supported the order passed by the learned PCIT. 9. We have heard the rival arguments, perused the material

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Meerut vs. Smt. Kamlesh, Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2152/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Vs. Smt. Kamlesh, Central Circle, 1402/1403, Vidhyanchal Meerut Tower, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad Pan :Akypk3905E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rohit Agarwal, Ca Department By Ms. Jaya Choudhary, Cit(Dr)

Section 153ASection 56(2)(vi)Section 68

twin remand reports (supra) that the assessee’s land purchased herein forms a “capital” asset so as to satisfy the rigor of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(i) of the Act wherein the legislature has itself incorporated the clinching statutory expression “property; means the following capital asset of the assessee

Tejas C. Joshi, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-5(3)(Original Jurisdiction) the Dy. CIT, Cent. Circle 2(2) (Present Jurisdiction), Ahmedabad

ITA 912/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 912/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) बनाम/ Tejas C Joshi Dy. Commissioner Of 9A, Santosa Park Society, Income Tax Vs. Nr. Aadiraj Bunglow, Central Circle 5(3), Iskon Ambli Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad (Original Ahmedabad - 380058 Jurisdiction) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 2(2), Ahmedabad (Present Jurisdiction) "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanpj4735G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Hardik Vora, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Prasad Rao Waghe Annasaheb, Sr. Dr 22/11/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prasad Rao Waghe Annasaheb
Section 56(2)(vii)

only. The AO, therefore, added the difference amount of Rs.2,51,39,530/- as income of the assessee under the provision of Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). ITA No. 912/Ahd/2023 [DCIT vs. Tejas C. Joshi

Dharmesh Ramesh Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. The Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit Faceless Assessments, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5472/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2017-18 Dharmesh Ramesh Jhaveri, The Asst./Dy. Commissioner Of 1 & 2,Bhagyodaya Building, Income Tax, Sarojini Road, Vs. Circle-2(2)(1), Vile Parle (West), Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Mumbai. Aayakar Bhavan, Pan : Aacpj6530G M.K. Road, Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Lalchand Choudhary, For Revenue : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-12-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04-12-2024 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran, A.M : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dt. 28-08- 2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟] & It Relates To Ay. 2017-18. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Decision Of The Ld.Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50.06 Lakhs Made By The Ao U/S. 56(2)(Vii)(B)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟).

For Appellant: Shri Lalchand ChoudharyFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.DR
Section 56(2)(vii)

assessee had paid an advance of Rs. 1 lakh on 16-05-2010. Accordingly, by placing reliance on the proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act, the assessee contended that the stamp duty value as on the date of allotment should be considered for the purpose ... section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. The assessee submitted that the stamp duty value as on the date of allotment was Rs.40,34,880/- and it was less than the purchase consideration. Accordingly, the assessee contended that no addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) is called

Income Tax Officer, Main Building vs. Priya Estate Developers Private Limited, Abhiramapuram, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1244/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1244/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ito M/S. Priya Estate Developers Private Ltd. बनाम/ Corporate Ward-5(2) #11, Bashyam Basheer Ahmed Road Vs. Chennai. Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Pan No. Aahcp-5405-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) – Ld. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) -Ld. Ar (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) -Ld. AR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “सी” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी एबी टी