“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)

Mrs. Ruchita Jindal, Mumbai vs. Dy Comm of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 203/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews

Section 142ASection 143(2)Section 148Section 234ASection 56(2)(vii)

learned AO erred in not appreciating that the case of the appellant was covered by the proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b). 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in making addition in AY 2015-16 instead ... learned AO erred in not appreciating that the case of the appellant was covered by the proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b). 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in making addition in AY 2015-16 instead

Swati Atul Kadakia, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 338/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleswati Atul Kadakia V. Income Tax Officer – 16(3)(1) Room No. 447 1302, Vasant Aradhana Tower Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Lines Mahavir Nagar, Kandivali (W) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400067 Pan: Aabpk8725D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)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

ACIT Central-2, Bhopal vs. Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Bhopal

ITA 87/IND/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 The Acit (Central)-2, Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Bhopal, Mp-462011 H.No.E-2/134, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal, Mp-452016 Pan Adhpa8387N (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit(Dr) For Assessee : Shri S. S. Deshpande, Ca Shri Satyajeet Chatterjee, Ca

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Deshpande, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)

Section 132(4)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH: DB: INDORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BHAGIRATH

Hirenkumar Pravinchandra Desai, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir. 2(3), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is partly

ITA 187/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

arent acter arf, aad earatis, ata IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT “SMC” BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH

Dr. Rishi Kumar Sehgal, Bodkhi, Amla District Betul vs. Income Tax Officer, Betul

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 420/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2014-15 Dr. Rishi Kumar Sehgal, Ito, Prahlad Clinic, Betul Main Road, बनाम/ Bodkhi, Amla, Distt. Betul Vs.

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

evidences but the assessee could not make any explanation (Para 4.3 of assessment-order). Therefore, ultimately, the AO applied statutory provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b); computed difference at Rs. 61,39,050/- [Rs. 85,00,000/- (-) Rs. 23,60,950/-] and added ½ share of assessee amounting ... referring to Para 4 thereof, demonstrated that the assessee made a representation to CIT(A)incorporating the verdict of section 56(2)(vii)(b) read with section 50C and claiming that the AO was under obligation to refer the matter to Valuation Officer but the same was not done. However

Shri Anil Bhikhubhai Vartaria, Jamnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3), Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 255/RJT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

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

than 5% only. Therefore taking into account, the totality of the transactions made by the assessee, we find that the invocation of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) does not arise in this case. Therefore we direct to delete the entire addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 56(2)(vii

Shri Mahesh Bhikhubhai Varotaria, Jamnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-2 (1), Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 253/RJT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

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

Sanjay Bansal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Noida

ITA 2942/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Gourav Mittal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

donee Smt. Manju Garg is liable to tax on income of Rs. 1,72,80,000/- in assessment year 2009-10 under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and directed the Ld. AO to do so in para 10. In the next para ... consideration of natural love and affection vide registered gift deed dated 19.11.2008. 5.1 The Ld. AR pointed out that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) are not applicable to the case of the assessee. The said provision was substituted by the Finance Act, 2010 with retrospective effect from

Shri Chelaram Khemlani, Indore vs. The Pr CIT-1, Indore

ITA 122/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

plot at Rs. 3,38,75,000/- which exceeds the consideration of Rs. 33,00,038/- paid by assessee and, therefore, section 56(2)(vii)(b) is attracted; according to which the difference of Rs. 3,38,75,000/- (–) Rs.33,00,038/- should have been taxed as “income from other

Kalpana Jain, Indore vs. The Pr CIT-1, Indore

ITA 138/IND/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: & Shri Santosh Deshmukh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT.D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 56(2)(vii)

case, the learned Hon'ble Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore- 1, Indore had erred in ignoring that the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) can be invoked only where sale consideration on sale of immovable property is less than stamp duty valuation. Therefore, the appellant prays that ... Such finding of the Ld. AO has found to be is not fair and the same is violation of the provision of Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act as of the ultimate view of the Ld. PCIT. In fact, Ld. PCIT was of the opinion that

Hassanand Khemlani, Indore vs. The PCIT-1, Indore

ITA 110/IND/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: & Shri Santosh Deshmukh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT.D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 56(2)(vii)

Manilal Jethabhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(3), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 43/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Manilal Jethabhai Patel, I.T.O., Shop No. 03, Uma Bhavan, Near Ward 1(3)(3), Vs. Kansarawad, Moti Bazar, Bhatar Surat-395001. Road, Bhatar, Surat-395017. Email:Carohitktaja@Gmail.Com Pan No. Aanpp 2768 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 22/11/2019 and made addition on account of unexplained investment under Section 69 and addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee by holding that in spite of several opportunities, no one attended

Chandubhai B Khatrani, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 46/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhsh. Chandubhai B Khatrani, Ito, Ward, I-402, Kaveari Habitat, 3(3)(1),Surat. Vs. Near Sarthana, Jakatnaka, Varachha Road, Surat. Email:Vrmandassociates@Gmail.Com 9016091548/ 9879056986 Pan No. Asrpk 3514 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 144Section 254(1)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

made addition under section 69 of Rs. 9,54,120/- on account of unexplained investment for purchasing property and addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of Rs. 2,58,188/- . The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee by holding that in spite of several opportunities

Mrs Arvinder Kaur, Greater Noida vs. ITO, Noida

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2491/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.2491 /Del/2016 (Assessment Year : 2010-11)

Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

Charan Singh, the maternal uncle of the assessee. The AO has rejected the claim of gift in the light of provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act which were introduced in the Act by Finance Act, 2010, with retrospective effect from 01.10.2009. The Ld. AO had considered ... executed between the assessee and her maternal uncle, to contend that the Ld. Revenue authorities below have erred in invoking the provisions Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of Act which was effective from 01.10.2009 only, while documents of transfer in the form of gift deed was executed on 25.03.2009 followed

Rekha Ajaykumar Agrawal, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner O Income Tax, Cir.1(2), Surat

ITA 356/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपील सं./Ita No.356/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Rekha Ajaykumar Agrawal Assistant Commissioner Of 229-230, Ashoka Tower, Ring Income-Tax, Circle-1(2), Aayakar Vs. Road,Surat-395002 Bhavan, N. Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaspa 2993 A (Assessee ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh C Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kuamr, Sr-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 23(2)Section 23(4)Section 24Section 56(2)(vii)

2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals) has erred in applying section 56(2)(vii)(b), though the transaction was commenced at a time when the such provision was not in the statute. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals

Shri Dalubhai R.Chauhan, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer(International Taxation), Surat

ITA 141/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.141/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) Shri Dalubhai Raghabhai Chauhan Income Tax Officer, International 201, Swastik Heights, B/H Terapanth Taxation, Anavil Business Centre, Vs. Bhavan, City Light Road, Surat- Adajan, Surat-395002 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Atzpc 0952 H (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar– Sr.DR

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRIPAWAN SINGH, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.141/SRT/2019 ("नधा

Shri Khalid Aman, Bhopal vs. The PCIT-2, Bhopal

ITA 225/IND/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Khalid Aman, Pr. Cit-2 Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aarpa 4443 L Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 17.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2023

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

that the order of assessment does not suffer any illegality. 4. The Ld. Pr. CIT went wrong in invoking the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the income tax act. The Pr. CIT failed to note that the said provisions is applicable only with effect from ... domain of Ld. AO: (i) Issue No. 1 – The assessee had purchased following properties for inadequate consideration, which though attracted section 56(2)(vii)(b) yet the Ld. AO has not made enquiries: It is observed that the assessee purchased following three properties at the values lesser than the valuation

ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Dreamz Dwellers LLP (Legal Representative of M/S.Megacorp Developers Private Limited), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 2394/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR

Section 56(2)(viib)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM

Ranjit Shivram Raut, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-3, Palghar

ITA 1902/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ranjit Shivram Raut, Ito, Ward 3, B-301, Dasrath Singh Nagar, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Devashi Road, Bhaji Market, Bidco Road, Palghar (W), Palghar-401404 Tal. & Dist. Palghar-401404. Pan No. Ajhpr 0430 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Subodh Ratnaparkhi, Ar : Revenue By Smt. Mahita Nair, Cit- Dr Mr. T. Shankar, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 06/09/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 16/11/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Subodh Ratnaparkhi, AR

Section 56(2)(vii)

lands purchased were not capital assets and that the lands purchased were not capital assets and therefor therefore the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(i) were not e the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(i) were not attracted and the addition was not justified. attracted

ITO - 25(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Rajni D. Saini, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7120/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 7120/मुं/2018 (िन.व. 2014-15) Income Tax Officer- 25(3)(3), Room No.606, 6Th Floor, C-10, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400 051 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Rajni D. Saini 6, Lalit Kunj, Dadabhai Road, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai 400 056. Pan: Aacps-7288-J ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Smt. Shailaja Rai "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Dr. K. Shivram With Shri Shashi Bekal सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/11/2022 आदेश/ Order This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 37, Mumbai [ In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 4/10/2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue In Appeal Has Raised Eight Grounds Assailing The Findings Of Cit(A) Deleting Addition Of Rs.5,13,25,000/- U/S. 56(2)(Vii)(B) Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Smt. Shailaja RaiFor Respondent: Dr. K. Shivram with Shri Shashi Bekal

Section 56(2)(vii)

allotment would be the date of purchase of immovable property. The ld.Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the first proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the sale consideration agreed in the letter of allotment can be treated ... 01/08/2013 in a period relevant to the Assessment Year 2014-15. The ld.Counsel for the assessee submits that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act cannot have retrospective effect, hence, the same would be not applicable on a transaction completed in Assessment Year