“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)

Anshika Kumar, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7298/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaanshika Kumar Vs. Dcit, 248, Gujranwala Town, Central Circle-3, Part-3, First Floor, New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 153ASection 155Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

findings given in the impugned order. In so far as addition of Rs 22,60,000 after invoking the deeming provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act, the assessee's case has been that the said property in question was occupied by her husband late, Shri

Rohitabh Soni, Kota vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Kota

ITA 349/JPR/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Sept 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Saurabh Harsh (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

circumstances of the case the learned lower authorities grossly erred in making an addition of Rs. 86,80,096/ under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the I.T. Act on account of suppression of purchase price of land in the hands of the assessee appellant. 3. That the learned

Sunder Lal, Rewari vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Gurgaon

ITA 1594/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Ishwar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 250

amount of Rs. 8,36,000/- is being added to the total income of the assessee as per the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 14. This finding has been affirmed by the ld.CIT(A) and sustained the said addition on the ground that ... addition is sustainable as per the provisions of section 56 (2)(vii)(b) of the Act. It is the contention of the assessee that the official circle rate downloaded from the website of the Office

Sunder Lal, Rewari vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Gurgaon

ITA 1593/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Ishwar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 250

Gajraj Giri, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bilaspur

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of my observations above

ITA 222/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 222/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Gajraj Giri S/O. Raghuraj Giri, Sai Mandir Road, Jaharbhata, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan : Afgpg0112E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

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

Income Tax Dept., 24(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Gitika Ganesh Sane, Mumbai

ITA 1088/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 255(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

Third Member for his decision: - "On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, whether the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act is attracted to the impugned transaction of purchase of immovable property and the addition made thereunder by the Assessing Officer is justified?” 2 ... following draft question after detailed discussion and deliberation. “On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, whether the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act is attracted to the impugned transaction of purchase of immovable property and the addition made thereunder by the Assessing Officer

Ashutosh Sinha, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 643/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

shareholder in the property, therefore, amount of Rs.1,09,37,003/- is taxable in the hands of the assessee as per Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii). 3.1 During the course of assessment proceedings AO noted that the entire payment for the purchases of the property at Villa 3 Shri ... case of disagreement. The ld. AO held that the contention of the assessee cannot be accepted because the provision of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) is very clear that the actual consideration for a property cannot be less than its stamp duty value. Thus, he held that assessee’s case

Elvis Zepherin Crasto, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Int Tax Ward 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1921/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleelvis Zepherin Crasto V. Income Tax Officer Gorai Village, Jui Pada International Taxation Gorai Essel World Road Ward – 2(1)(1) Borivali (W), Mumbai - 400091 Room No. 1724, 17Th Floor Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Asgpc6280N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)Section 56(2)Section 69

hands of the seller while Section 56 (2)(x) specifies the taxability of such transactions in the hands of the buyer. Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of Income Tax Act provides that where an individual or a Hindu undivided family receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons

Smt. Mumtajbanu A. Jivani, Amreli vs. The ITO, Ward-3 (1) (4), Amreli

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 284/RJT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 269USection 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

solitary issue in the present appeal relates to the addition to the income of the assessee in terms of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act amounting to Rs. 55,91,837/-, being the amount by which an immoveable property purchased by the assessee fell short of its stamp ... property adopted for stamp duty valuation, he treated the difference of Rs. 1,11,83,673/- as income in terms of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The assessee’s share in the property being 50%, addition of 50% of the difference

Naresh Kumar Jindal, Hanumangarh Junction vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Bikaner

Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 11,20,000/- is sustained. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant regarding this issue are dismissed

ITA 18/JODH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur31 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

addition of Rs.16,226 made for differential amount in DLC Value and consideration disclosed in registered purchase document after referring to section 56(2)(vii)(b) whereas these provisions would not apply in a case where difference in DLC Value and consideration shown in registered documents is less than Rs.50

Lalita, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 9874/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Lalita, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-2, 248, Ist Floor, New Delhi. Gujaranwalan Town, Part-Iii, New Delhi-1100 09 Pan :Aatpl3102H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

assessee has challenged two issues, firstly, the addition of Rs.22,60,000 after invoking the 2 ITA No. 9874/Del./2019 provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that circle rate of the property was more than the sales consideration ... distress sale because the said property was under tenancy. Learned Assessing Officer held that as per Proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act, the sales consideration is deemed to be as per the circle rate at Rs.1,05,20,000 and since the assessee was half

Rajasthan Transmat Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 165/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MEETHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Mrs. Prabha Rana, AR and Shri Vinod Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

question that the share application money was received in the Financial Year 2011-12 and till that period, neither the provision of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was there in the statute nor Rule 11U and 11UA was prescribed and thus the provision of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) cannot ... even the Rules specified 11U and 11UA [for determining value of shares as per Explanation (a) (i) to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) have been inserted w.e.f. 29-11-2012. The ld. AR further submitted that when the shares were issued in FY 2011-12 then neither the substantive provision

Gobindram Jagdish Kakwani, Mumbai vs. ITO International Taxation Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed

ITA 37/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Blegobindram Jagdish Kakwani Vs. Ito (It)- Ward 3(1)(1) C/O Gulabani & Co. Ca, Air India Building 507, 5Th Floor, Shree Prasad House Nariman Point 35Th Road, Off Linking Road Mumbai-400021 Bandra (West), Mumbai- 400050 Pan: Awopk5474C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 50CSection 54Section 54F

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI

Anil Kumar Thakkar, Mayurbhanj vs. ITO, Ward-2, Baripada

ITA 149/CTK/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR

Section 56(2)(vii)

Rs.15,82,000/- and on the ground that the difference in the consideration was more than Rs.50,000/-, invoked the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act and brought to tax 50% of the difference between Rs 15,82,000 – Rs.9

Ai-Yaseen Trading Co.P.Ltd, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Meerut

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

ITA 6244/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Surat vs. Bhikhabhai Keshubhai Dhameliya, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 196/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.196/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. Bhikhabhai Keshubhai Dhameliya, Surat. Jay Gangeshwar Society, Varachha, Dist – Surat, 395010. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaupd7552N Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca 31/05/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16/06/2023

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

there is a difference of Rs.2,21,82,025/- (Rs.5,37,79,500 less Rs.3,15,97,475/-), on which provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the I.T. Act clearly attracts. Therefore, a show cause notice dated 18.12.2018 was issued to the assessee. The relevant portion ... Stamp Valuation Authority for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer. As per the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the I.T. act, an assessee, being Individual or HUF receives(buy) any immovable property for a consideration which is less than the stamp

Shabbir Rajabali Vakil, Mumbai vs. ITO Int Ward 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 874/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshabbir Rajabali Vakil Vs. Ito (Int. Tax) Ward 701, Silver View, 4(3)(1), Room No. 1625, Chimbai Road, Bandra 16Th Floor, Air India West, Mumbai – 400050 Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Abvpv6524C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Abhishek SamdaniFor Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

P a g e | 1 Shabbir Rajabali Vakil Vs. ITO (IT) Ward 4(3)(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

Shri.Viswanatha Manoj Kumar, Kochi vs. The Pr.CIT, Kochi

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

ITA 151/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkeyviswanatha Manoj Kumar Pr. Commissioner Of 39/421, Temple Road Income Tax - 1 Kadavanthara Vs. C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Ernakulam 682020 Kochi 682018 [Pan:Adwpm1619G] [Appellant] [Respondent] Appellant By: Shri K.M.V. Pandalai, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Prasanth V.K., Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri K.M.V. Pandalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prasanth V.K., CIT-DR

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

State Government for the purpose of levy of stamp duty, was at Rs.215.21 lakhs, i.e., at Rs.76.03 lacs higher. The provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act, reading as under, was thus attracted, applicability of which had not been examined by the Assessing Officer

Shilpa Gautam, Mumbai vs. ITO, (Int Tx), Ward-2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 409/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh AthwaleFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 56(2)(Vii)Section 56(2)(vii)

2. The learned ITO erred in making adjustment of INR 55,87,000 as income from other sources under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) in pursuance of the direction given by the DRP. 3. The learned ITO erred in not giving the effect to the first proviso to Section 56 ... Income tax Act.” All the above grounds raised by the Appellant are directed against the addition of INR 55,87,000/- under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, and therefore, the same are being taken up together hereinafter. The relevant facts in brief are that the Appellant

Sulochana Saijan Modi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-National E-Assessment Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 557/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh& Shri Om Prakash Kantsulochana Saijan Modi, Ito, A-501, Akar Apartment, National E- बनाम/ Film City Road, Malad Assessment Centre, Vs. East, Mumbai-400097. Mumbai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaopm0887F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Shashi Tulsian ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Ajay Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 11/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 23/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Om Prakash Kant - Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.01.2023 Passed By Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] For Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsianFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh, Sr.AR

Section 143(3)Section 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