“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)

Parasmal Champalal Bamboli, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -27, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 580/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Parasmal Champalal Bamboli, Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-27 Room No. 401, 4Th Floor, Tower No. C/O Sarvodaya Vastra Bhandar, Ramgiri Building, Near Natraj Vs. 6, Vashi Railway Station, Cinema Chembur, Commercial Complex, Vashi, Mumbai-400071. Navi Mumbai-400703. Pan No. Aafpb 2058 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ajay Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Jacinta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/01/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Jacinta, CIT-DR

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

Since you have purchased the property in a lesser value adopted by the Stamp Duty Authorities violating the provisions of section 56(2) (vii) (b) of Income Tax act, 1961 (the "Act"). Further you have made advance payment of Rs.30,00,000/- to the builder in F.Y. 2011-12. However ... assessment order. The Pr. CIT concluded that no inquiry has been made by the Assessing Officer with reference to the applicability of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and the income has been assessed in violation of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. It was further

Meena Verma, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-32(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 7222/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Princy Singla, Sr.D.R

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

grounds of appeal, the assessee has agitated the additions of Rs.69,70,000/- made by the Assessing Officer by invoking Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. 3. We have heard the rival submissions on the above disputes. It is the case of the assessee that the Assessing

Gyanendra Tyagi, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7769/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 69

first appellate order and submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has invoked the Gyanendra Tyagi Vs. DCIT provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(i) of the Act without giving the assessee any show cause notice in this regard and, therefore, the principle of natural justice was not followed ... order, we do find force in the submission of the Ld. Authorized Representative that the Ld. CIT(A) has invoked provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(i) of the Act without giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing in this regard whereas the initial addition had been made