← 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. Naagesh Kanaiyalal Thakkar, Dharawad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hubli

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 550/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeynagesh Kanaiyalal Thakkar The Income Tax Officer Lovely Sweets, Baradan Saal Ward - 2(1), Hubli Hubli Sarafkatta S.O. Vs. Hubli 580020 Pan – Aaupt7785P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vinay K. Kulkarni, Ca Revenue By: Shri Guru Kumar S. Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1060678544(1) Dated 08.02.2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Confirmed The Additions Made Under Section 56(2)(Vii) Which Is Against The Facts. 2. The Addition Confirmed Is Against The Provisions Of The Income Tax Act 3. The Beneficial Provision Is Read In A Too Rigid Way So As To Deny The Benefit Conferred By The Income Tax Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vinay K. Kulkarni, CAFor Respondent: Shri Guru Kumar S. Addl CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(Vii)Section 56(2)(vii)

made on 11.05.2009 was more than 9 months after the date of agreement. In view of clear provisions of second proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) that "first proviso shall apply only in a case where the amount of consideration referred to therein, or a part thereof, has been ... assessee, has been passed by department accepting the contentions. 9. Before proceeding further, it is appropriate to take note of the relevant section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the I Tax Act, 1961 applicable for the Asst. Year 2015- 16 which reads as under- [ (vii) where an individual

Basabdutta Dutta., Bankura vs. ITO, Ward- 3(1), Kenduadihi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 868/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.868/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Basabdutta Dutta…………………..……………………....………....Appellant Kayasthapara, P.O+Dist – Bankura, Pin-722101. [Pan: Adtpd8748C] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Bankura….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate & D.K. Sen, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sallong Yaden, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 11, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.07.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A)(Nfac) In Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Erred In Confirming Disallowance On Account Of Exemption Of Rs.1,65,52,344.00 Claimed U/S 54F On Return Of Income. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A)(Nfac) In Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Is Not Justified To Confirm Addition Of Rs.7,38,588.00 Made U/S 56(2)(Vii) 3. For That The Appellant Reserves His Right To Add To, To Alter, To Amend The Grounds & To Adduce Paper & Document At The Time Of Hearing.”

Section 250Section 54FSection 56(2)(VII)

market value of the property at Rs.2,22,38,588/-. The Assessing Officer thus added Rs.7,38,588/- invoking provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 8. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions so made by the Assessing Officer. 9. The ld. counsel for the assessee ... transfer deed as compared to the value determined by the DVO was less than 5%. He further referred to the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act r.w.s 50C of the Act and submitted that as per the 3rd Proviso to section 50C as inserted