← 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)

Fatichand Rameshlal, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Salem

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 898/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.897/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Rameshlal Kailash Ito बनाम/ 1F, Rajaji Road, Ward -1(4) Vs. Salem-636 007. Salem. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aekpk-0380-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.898/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Fatichand Rameshlal Ito बनाम/ 1F, Rajaji Road, Ward -1(4) Vs. Salem-636 007. Salem. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acfpr-4254-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj (Ca) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार

Rameshlal Kailash, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Salem

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 897/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.897/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Rameshlal Kailash Ito बनाम/ 1F, Rajaji Road, Ward -1(4) Vs. Salem-636 007. Salem. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aekpk-0380-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.898/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Fatichand Rameshlal Ito बनाम/ 1F, Rajaji Road, Ward -1(4) Vs. Salem-636 007. Salem. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acfpr-4254-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj (Ca) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार

Vasudev Yashwant Abhyankar, Raigad vs. ITO, Ward-4, Panvel

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

ITA 663/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.663/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vasudev Yashwant Vs. Ito, Ward-4, Panvel. Abhyankar, Jambhulpada, Sudhagad Raigad- 410205. Pan : Acypa1203H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.02.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit(A)-Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Passing An Ex-Parte Order Without Considering The Matter On Its Merits. He Failed To Consider The Submissions Made By Assessee Manually Before The Hon’Ble Cit(A)-2, Thane During The Physical Hearings Before Him On Various Dates. As Such, The Impugned Order Has Been Passed Without Considering The Matter On Its Merits. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred On Facts & In Law In Making Addition Of Rs.9,96,500 On Account Of Purchase Of Land For A Consideration Less Than That Of The Value Determined By The Stamp

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 43CSection 56(2)(vii)

consideration less than that of the value determined by the stamp 2 duty valuation authority by invoking the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act without appreciating the facts as well as the submissions made in this behalf. 3. The Learned CIT(A) erred on facts

Mohammad Ibrahim, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-32(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1408/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1408/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mohammad Ibrahim……..……..…..……............…...……………....Appellant 6 Jhautala Road, Park Circus, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan:Aanpi9964N] Vs. Ito, Ward-32(3), Kolkata…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Smt. Swatee Baid, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 21, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 30, 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 19.10.2023 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 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Action Of The A.O Of Making The Addition Of Rs. 47,55,787/- By Wrongly Invoking The Provisions Of Sec 56(2)(Vii)(B)(Ii). 2 For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld Cit(A) Ought To Have Considered The Fact That The Assessee Is A Promoter & Real Estate Developer & The Asset Purchased Was To Be Used For Business & Was Not A Capital Asset As Such Provisions Of Sec 56(2\(Vii) (B)(Ii) Were Not Applicable.

Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

calculated at Rs.47,55,790/- and the said amount was added to the income of the assessee invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. 4. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition so made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Before us, Smt. Swatee Baid ... Counsel for the assessee, has submitted that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act were not attracted in the case of the assessee. She has submitted that the assessee is in the business of real estate developer and the property was purchased to commercially exploit