“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)

Hero Fincorp Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 11(1), Delhi, C.R. Building

ITA 2542/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2542/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year:2017-18 Hero Fincop Ltd., 34 Community Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1) C. R. Building, New Delhi-110002 अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Pan:Aaach0157J Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Shri Himanshu Aggarwal Adv. Revenue By Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14.01.2026 उद्घोषणाकीतारीख/Pronouncement On 16.01.2026 आदेश /Order Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am, The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of ‘Hire Purchase Leasing & Finance'. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/(First Appellate Authority Hereinafter Referred As “Faa”), Delhi Dated 27.03.2024 Arising Out Of Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 29.12.2019For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Disallowance Of Provision For Collection Charges -Rs. 9,75,00,000/-

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 251(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESDIENT (THIRD MEMBER), SHRI SATBEER

Nilesh Pravinchandra Doshi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(1)(3), Mumbai, Maharashtra

ITA 8368/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarnilesh Pravinchandra Ito Ward 42(1)(3), Doshi Kautilya Bhavan, B/29, Pushpanjali Vs. Bandra Kurla Building, Jambli Gully, Complex, Bandra Borivali West, Mumbai- East, 400 092 Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Amcpd6391D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Jay Shah, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.01.2026

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

income as originally returned. 3. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made the following additions: 1. Rs. 1,26,730/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) on account of difference between stamp duty valuation and agreement value of immovable property. 2. Rs. 7,401/- on account of difference ... facts and placed reliance on the ground-wise explanation furnished in the paper book. It was submitted that the addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) has been made solely on account of difference 5 Nilesh Pravinchandra Doshi between the agreement value and the stamp duty valuation of the immovable

Pratish Shah (HUF), Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 1113/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargshri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh C Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR

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

property was 87,81,709/-. The difference of Rs.24,57,209/- was considered as other income and added under the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 19.02.2021 at a total income of Rs.27 ... assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. AO has erred in not following the proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, even though the same was brought to the notice of the AO through a reply to a show-cause

Subodh Adhikary, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 51(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 669/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH,KOLKATA SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Sarayu Krishna Kamat, Piramal Chamber vs. DCIT Circle 22(1), Piramal Chamber Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6738/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Sampat NagapFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary (SR AR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

authorities. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and examined the documents available on record. A plain reading of the proviso to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act reveals the following: “56(2)(vii) ………………………… (b) Any immovable property,— (i) Without consideration, if the stamp duty value exceeds fifty ... valuation of the property was Rs.4.19 crore, which is lower than the actual cost of acquisition. In view of the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, where the consideration has been paid through banking channels and the allotment has taken place in an earlier year

Ck International Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Delhi

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

ITA 677/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Satyen Sethi & A.T. PandaFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

Ecotech in law, ficer to Extn-I, Sector Ecotech-I, Greater Noida to DVO and adopt the same to compute income under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the A 5. That on the facts & circumstances of the case and the JCIT(A) has erred in directing the Assessing ... compute income under section 56(2)(vii) (b) of the Act. 6. That on the facts & circumstances of the case and the JCIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the s disallowance/adjustment under section 143(1) i ct. in law, ficer to in law, cope of sS very limited

Baba Healthcare Private Limited vs. ACIT Circle -1, Fbd

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 476/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshbaba Healthcare Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, C/O. Ipso Legal, H-35, 1St Circle-1, Floor, Jangpura Faridabad Extension, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcb7985R Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Saxena, Adv Ms. Ssumnagla Saxena, Adv Shri Dishant Sethi, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

dated 9-9-2015, wherein the fair market value of the share was determined at Rs. 66 per share as required under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) read with Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules. The Learned AO, however, in respect of amounts received from Mass Securities

Mr. Thirumani, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-6(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3351/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:3351/Chny/2024 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Thirumani, Acit, 260/1, Mint Street, Park Town, Vs. Non-Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai – 600 003. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aagpt-7541-K] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(थ&/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T

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

reliance on the much higher guideline value. Thus, the very foundation of the original addition stands substantially eroded. 26. We note that Section 56(2)(vii)(b) is a deeming provision, intended to tax real income arising from understatement of consideration. Such provisions must be strictly construed and cannot

Jagmeet Singh Sabharwal, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 954/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Singh Sabharwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 50C

third proviso of section 50C(1) providing exception in case of difference in value is less than 10% would be applicable to section 56(2)(vii)(b) has been discussed at length including the amendment brought in by the Finance Act 2018 and it has been held that section 56 ... alongwith sections 50C, 56(2)(x) and 43CA and the exceptions provided in the later three provisions have to be read _ into section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) to provide true meaning to the intention of the legislature and it has been held that the assessee would be eligible

G.S. Procon Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 5(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 509/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Shri Bonnie Deb Barma, Sr. DR

Section 56(2)(vii)

assessee is in the business of civil contractor. In the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer had invoked the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(i) of the Act (wrongly mentioned by the Assessing Officer as 56(1)(vii)(b)(i)) and had disallowed the difference between the documented ... recognised as a company in the assessment order in column 5 of the status. It was the submission that the provision of Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(i) of the Act applies to an individual or HUF. It was the submission that the assessee being not an individual

Meena Arjun Narang, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 27(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6651/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by

Section 147Section 56(2)(x)

various decisions of ITAT, Mumbai that Stamp Duty Valuation as on date of allotment letter should be considered for purposes of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. We consider that the respective allotment letters issued to the assessee should be considered as "Agreement to sell" for the purpose

Himanshu Kukreja, Dehradun vs. ITO, Dehradun

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 147/DDN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Himanshu Kukreja Vs Income Tax Officer Matta Garg & Co. Ca 15- Income Tax Office, 13-A, Astley Hall, Dehradun, Subhash Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakjhand Pan:Ahipk9462F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. K. Matta, Ca Revenue By Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2025

Section 13(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

Kukreja Education Society, Dehradun, found that, the properties in question have been purchased by the Assessee without consideration.Therefore, applied the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) Act against the Assessee and made addition of Rs. 8,64,15,000/-. 7. During the appellate proceeding, the Ld. CIT(A) while ... clear that 6 Himanshu Kukreja Vs. ITO properties in question have been purchased by the assessee without consideration and, therefore, provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) are attracted. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 8,64,15,000/-, being actual sale consideration and stamp duty paid in respect of immovable

Shantilal Narottamdas Panchal, Malad East vs. ITO-41(3)(4), Mumbai, Bandra Kurla Complex

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3570/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra PoojaryFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K (SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL

Jaydip Dhar, Jalpaiguri vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Jalpaiguri

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 642/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us That This Appeal Is Time Barred By 421 Days, For Which An Application Has Been Filed By The Assessee For Condoning Of The Said Delay. After Taking Into Account The Reasons Cited By The Ld Ar & Considering The Affidavit On Records We Find That The Delay Is Attributable To The Illness Of The Assessee For Which The Medical Certificate Along With Other Documents Were Placed Before Us

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69BSection 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH,KOLKATA SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.642/Kol/2025 (Assessment Year 2016-17

Urusi Rahman, Kadma vs. ITO, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 257/RAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.257/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Urusi Rahman….... …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 88 New Rani Kodar, Line No.4, Po Kadma, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand- 831005. [Pan: Amxpr0867K] Vs. Ito, Jsr…..……………….....….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 18, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 27.05.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Did Not File Any Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017–18. Subsequently, The Case Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 On The Basis Of Information Received By The Assessing Officer That The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property For A Declared Consideration Of ₹10,00,000, Whereas The Value Adopted For Stamp Duty Purposes Was ₹25,75,000. It Was Alleged That The Provisions Of Section 56(2)(Vii)(B) Of The Act Were Applicable. Accordingly, Notice Under Section 133(6) Was Issued Calling Upon The Assessee To Explain The Reasons For Not Filing The Return Of Income & To Furnish Details Regarding The Purchase Of The Property. However, There Was No Compliance By The Assessee. Thereafter, Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act Was Issued After Obtaining The Requisite Prior Approval From The Competent Authority. During The Course

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

whereas the value adopted for stamp duty purposes was ₹25,75,000. It was alleged that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act were applicable. Accordingly, notice under section 133(6) was issued calling upon the assessee to explain the reasons for not filing the return ... assessment was completed ex parte. The Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹15,75,000 as income from other sources under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, being the difference between the stamp duty value and the declared purchase consideration. Further, an addition

Raghavendra Ramakrishna Naik, Mumbai vs. ITO Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2027/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Raghavendra Ramakrishna Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Naik 3(3)(1), Mumbai Raghavendra Ramakrishna Room No. 626, 6Th Floor, Naik D-1, Flat No. 7, Navyouak Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, Society, Bhandup East, G Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai 400042 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051 Pan: (Afapn9077M) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Ms. Manisha Thakkar, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By Ld. Ito (Intl. Tax) Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai-3 Vide Order No. Itba/Com/F/17/2024-25/1072645237(1) Dated 28.01.2025 Passed Pursuant To The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 02.12.2024 For Ay 2016-17. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. The Applicant States That The Learned Income Tax Officer Has Erred In Passing The Order Which Is Illegal, Arbitrary & Against The Principle Laid

For Appellant: Ms. Manisha Thakkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

same as a part purchase consideration for the purchase of the said flat and disregarding the Provisions of proviso to the section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act 3. On the Facts and Circumstances of the case, The DRP/ Ld. AO erred both on facts ... confirming the addition of Rs. 18,95,000/- disregarding the Proviso to Section 56(2)(vii) (b)(ii)of the Act, which stipulates that where the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer/ purchase of immovable property (date of allotment 29.09.2010) and the date

Himmatbhai Madhabhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1552/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalhimmatbhai M. Patel, Vs. Ito, 18, Kailash Dham Part-2, Ward 5(3)(1), India Colony Road, Bapunagar, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380024 [Pan :Aanpd 2497 D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divetia & Shri Samir Vora, Ars Respondent By: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia & Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

therefore, ground Nos. 1 to 4 are decided against the assessee. “ 4. In this background, the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act are examined. The same reads as under:- (x) where any person receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons on or after

ACIT, Central Circle-II, Lucknow vs. Rakesh Kumar Pandey, Gonda U.P

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

ITA 460/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 253(3)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Lucknow vs. Rakesh Kumar Pandey, Gonda

ITA 405/LKW/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 145(3)Section 54FSection 56(2)(vii)Section 69Section 69A

erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of investment in house property under section 56(2)(vii)(b) without appreciating that the assessee had owned property more than 7 house property situated at Lucknow at the time of transfer of property that violates the provisions ... Rs.47,38,700/- out of total addition of Rs.1,54,35,000/- computed by the Assessing Officer under the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) in respect of property at Khata No. 192-2 / Gata No. 447/2, Civil Lines, Gonda in contravention of the facts that agreement for transfer

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Lucknow vs. Rakesh Kumar Pandey, Gonda Up

ITA 399/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 145(3)Section 54FSection 69

erred in confirming addition of Rs. 61,31,000/- out of total addition of Rs.77,38,700/- out of the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)in respect of property at Khata No. 192-2 / Gata No. 447/2, Civil Lines, Gonda in contravention of the facts that agreement