← 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)

Mahesh Ramkrishna Bhingare, Vivekanand Nagar, Nagpur vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax Or Income-Tax Officer, Ward -1 Range-1, Nagpur, Saraf Chamber, Income Tax Office, Saraf Chambers, Sadar

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 224/NAG/2023[AY 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 May 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Duragkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 50C(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH :NAGPUR [VIRTUAL HEARING] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No

Akshay Dilip Nahar, Jalna vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 953/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 251(1)(a)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE [THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING] BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT

Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(3), Pune vs. Gopal Janardan Tambe, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 894/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sarvesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155Section 50CSection 56Section 56(2)(vii)

said agricultural lands was Rs.5,75,15,000/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 154 on 19.02.2019 invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer passed a rectification order u/s 154 wherein he assessed income at Rs.5 ... bringing the difference between the sale of consideration and the stamp duty valuation to tax by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act on the ground that there were no sufficient evidences to prove the land purchased to be an agricultural land. 8. The appellant

Savji Karsan Chowdhary, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

ITA 3987/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vinayak R. Pandya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan, D.R
Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

claimed that he has purchased the property in 2009 is baseless and cannot be accepted. The AO also reproduced the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act which enumerates that where an individual receives any immovable property after 01.10.2009 for a consideration which is less than ... assessee as income from other sources. The AO further observed that from the above discussion it is clear that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act apply to the case of the assessee as the stamp duty value in case of the assessee is Rs.1

DCIT Central Circle-20, Delhi vs. Puneet Mittal, Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 832/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

Section 142ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL

DCIT Central Circle-20, Delhi vs. Preeti Mittal, Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 830/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

Section 142ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL

Arvind Dada Kolekar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 16(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4137/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHARI (Accountant Member)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151ASection 56(2)(vii)

erred in making addition of Differential amount of Rs. 18,05,500/ being difference between Sale Consideration and Stamp Duty Value under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. At the outset, ld. Counsel submitted that ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ... total consideration of Rs.2,59,42,000/- whereas stamp valuation of the property was Rs.2,77,47,500/- and accordingly, proceedings of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) are attracted with respect to difference amount of Rs.18,05,500/-. Thus, based on this information, the ld. AO has issued a notice

Indira Pasupuleti, Palakollu vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Kakinada

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

ITA 8/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.08/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Indira Pasupuleti, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Palakollu. International Taxation, Pan: Gfjpp 5413 L Kakinada. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

value was Rs. 30,50,000/-. In this regard, the Ld. AO observed that as per the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, the assessee has purchased the property below the market value and hence the difference

Abalabba Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-12(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2949/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri M M Golvala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 57(2)Section 69Section 698Section 69B

purchase price paid by the assessee as deemed income. In this regard, the ld. AR drew our attention to the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act which provides for taxation of such deemed income to submit that the said section is applicable only in the case ... assessee's arguments against the addition are multi fold – (i) The addition cannot be made under section 69 or 69B, (ii) Section 56(2)(vii)(b) which brings to tax the difference between the stamp duty value and the sale consideration is not applicable to assessee being a company

M/S. Finwizard Technology Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 15/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Sri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

ITA No.15/Bang/2024 Finwizard Technology Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI

Akshay Ajay Rathi, Amravati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Amravati

Appeal is allowed

ITA 71/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri R.B. AtalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 56(2)

factual matrix at length so far as the assessee’s sole substantive grievance challenging correctness of both the lower authorities action making section 56(2) (vii)(b)(ii) addition of Rs.2,08,335/- is concerned. This is for the precise reason that the actual purchase price of the relevant capital

Harish Pahalajmal Khatri, HUF, Amravati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Amravati

Appeal is allowed

ITA 384/NAG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri R.B. AtalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 56(2)

factual matrix at length so far as the assessee’s sole substantive grievance challenging correctness of both the lower authorities action making section 56(2) (vii)(b)(ii) addition of Rs.2,22,950/- is concerned. This is for the precise reason that the actual purchase price of the relevant capital

Muklesur Rahaman, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir.-61, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 39/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Muklesur Rahaman Sarkar Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Subash Agarwal & Income Tax, Circle 61, Associates, Advocates, Siddha Vs. Kolkata. Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069. (Pan: Atpps0434C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rakeshb Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Kusum Mittal, Haryana vs. DCIT, CC-1, Gurgaon

ITA 808/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 55ASection 56(2)(vii)

property purchased @ Page 2 of 21 Kusum Mittal Rs. 18,000/- per sq. yards to Rs. 7,47,000/- by invoking section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 3.1 That the aforesaid addition has made without opportunity that once no reference was made to the valuation officer ... adopting the circle rate of the property at Rs. 18,000/- per sq. yards of Rs. 7,47,000/- by invoking Section 56 (2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the orders of the Lower Authorities are bad in law as no reference

Anil Kumar Paik, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-8(1), Kol, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 492/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 492/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anil Kumar Paik Acit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Vs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aflpp6567R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Commissioner, Of Income Tax (Appeals)- N.F.A.C. Acted Unlawfully In Impliedly Sustaining; The Purported Addition Of Rs. 1,67.44,907/- Made The Ld. Assistant Commissioner, Of Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Kolkata By Invoking The Mischief U/S. 43Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Satisfying The Parameters Thereof & The Adverse Conclusion Reached On That Behalf In Violation Of The Statutory Prescription Is Completely Unfounded, Unjustified & Untenable In Law. 2. For That The Specious Approach Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-N.F.A,C. Of Misreading Evidence, Considering Improper Facts

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 145Section 250Section 43C

occasion to consider the value of the flat in case of sale by the Developer in the context of section 50C and section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. The Division Bench observed thus: "3. Regarding question No. (i): ** ** ** (f) It is self evident from reading of section

Bittu Arora, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-29(4), Kolkata.

In the result, ITA No. 1144/KOL/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1144/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Anikesh Banerjee & Sri Girish Agrawal

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 56(2)(b)Section 56(2)(vii)

case is that the assessee was assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act and the additions were made related to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,59,49,525/- and also the small addition was made related to interest and bank charges amounting

Sarwar Ahuja, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 493/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.493/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Sarwar Ahuja Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-6(1) Pan:Ahkpa9724E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/02/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 2/8/2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac, Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2018-19. 2. This Appeal Was Fixed For Hearing On 21/11/2023. However, Due To Non-Appearance By Anyone On The Date Of Hearing, The Case Was Adjourned To 15.2.2024 & Notice Was Issued Through Rpad Which Was Duly Served On The Assessee & The Acknowledgment Placed On Record. However, On 15.2.2024 When The Name Of The Assessee Was Called There Was Neither Anyone Present For The Assessee Nor Any Application

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

completion of the assessment, the valuation report from the valuer was not received. The Assessing Officer therefore, applying the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) r.w.s. 50C of the I.T. Act, 1961 took the value of the purchase consideration of the property at Rs.2,43,02,502/- and accordingly ... receipt of such report from the DVO till completion of the assessment, the Assessing Officer applying the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) r.w.s. 50C of the I.T. Act, 1961 made addition of Rs.54,01,251/- being the assessee’s share of the difference between the purchase consideration

Smt. Pinki Chetan Shah, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT, ITO-20(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3629/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Govind Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Yogendra T. Wakare, DR
Section 2Section 56(2)(x)

over thinking and hyper technical interpretation at the end of the A.O. assessee’s case clearly falls in the proviso to Section 56(2)(vii)(b). For sake of clarity we are reproducing herein below the relevant portion of proviso “Provided that where the date of the agreement fixing ... sale deed were different but assessee, prior to date of agreement, had paid a part of consideration by cheque, provisos to section 56(2)(vii)(b) being fulfilled, stamp value as on date of agreement should be applied for purpose of said section d) Ashutosh Jhavs. ITO Ward

Dnyeshwar Keshavrao Bhosale, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 801/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri R P DawareFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav K Singh
Section 143(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE : [VIRTUAL HEARING] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No

Shobha Jain, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(5), Bengaluru

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

ITA 926/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2024AY 2017-18
Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

property and the assessee has purchased the property for a consideration which is less than the stamp duty value, the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) are very much applicable and after giving final opportunity to the assessee, the difference value was calculated by the AO as per para ... considered and such value to be compared with the guidance value of the property to invoke the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 10. In view of the above, the appellant demonstrated with documentary evidence that the difference in actual consideration paid and the guidance value