“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)

Pramod Devi Maheshwari, Pollock Street vs. Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Bhavan Poorva

ITA 1995/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Your Hon'Ble Tribunal Against The Appellate Order Dated 17.042025 Passed By The Learned Cit(A)-Nfac 2. The Said Appeal Could Not Be Filed Within The Statutory Period Of 60 Days, Which Expired On 16.06.2025, Due To Severe & Unforeseen Medical Reasons Which Are Detailed In The Accompanying Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay. 3. The Delay Was Caused Solely Due To A Medical Emergency Involving Acute Hypertensive Crisis, Spondylosis & Nerve Pain That Left Me Incapacitated & Unable To Manage My Legal Affairs For A Significant Period. The Delay Is Entirely Unintentional & Bona Fide. 4. I Have Enclosed All Relevant Supporting Documents, Including Medical Certificates & Doctor'S Advice, As Annexure-A To The Affidavit.

Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Pune vs. Sanghvi Beauty and Technologies Private Limited, Pune

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue as well

ITA 2120/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Respondent: "1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law

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

submission made by the appellant. In this case, the Ld. AO made an addition of Rs.56,58,16,902/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) towards the premium received from Wipro-Enterprise Limited(Wipro) and Ascent Private Equity Trust(Ascent). The details of shares and the valuation are as under ... clear whether the valuer has considered the same at all. 6.3 The appellant has argued that the first proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) expressly exempts the amounts received by a Venture Capital Undertaking(VCU) from an Alternative Investment Fund(AIF), towards issue of shares, from the applicability

Kanchan Lalwani, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

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

ITA 484/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 56(2)(x)Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam Bench श्री मंजूनाथ जी, माननीय लेखा सदस्य

Sejal Milan Vora, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4708/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Jigar MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Pushkaraj Bhangepatil, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

revised return on 31.03.2019 thereby declaring income of Rs.12,11,380/-, wherein I had disclosed income of Rs. 8,27,000/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 2. Subsequently, my case was reopened vide issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act and concluded vide assessment order

Shilpaben Hiteshbhai Sakaria, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2)(6), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 686/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Shilpaben Hiteshbhai Sakaria, Ito-1(2)(6), 17, Hetal Nagar Society, Near Income Tax Office, Anavil Navyug Collage, Rander Road, Vs. Business Business Centre, Surat-395005. Adajan Hazira Road, Adajan, Surat-395007. Pan No. Aqqps 4288 Q Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Himanshu Gandhi, CA

Section 234ASection 270ASection 56(2)(vii)

facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.1410000 under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) on Income Tax Act, 1961 Shilpaben Hiteshbhai Sakaria 2 Shilpaben Hiteshbhai Sakaria Ground 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, Ground ... agreement fixing date will be considered for the purpose of as on agreement fixing date will be considered for the purpose of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) which is below the purchase consideration. section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) which is below the purchase consideration. section 56(2)(vii

Vikas Ratanlal Jain, Aurangabad vs. CIT(A), Aurangabad

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

ITA 648/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.648/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vikas Ratanlal Jain, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Plot No.32, Station Road, Aurangabad. Vedant Nagar, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Afapj5847B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nandkishor S. Daga & Shri Nitesh N. Daga Revenue By : Shri Shashank Ojha Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.01.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “01. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ctt(A) Along With The Learned Ao Has Erred In Contending That Provisions Of S. 56(2)(Vii)(B) Is Applicable To All The Immovable Properties Even If Such Land Is Considered As Stock In Trade. As Mentioned In The Explanation To The Aforesaid Section, Property Means The ‘Capital Asset’ Of The Assessee & Hence If Land Is Considered As Stock In Trade, Provisions Of Such 2 Section Are Not Applicable To Such Purchase. Reliance Is Placed On The Various Judicial Precedents Wherein It Has Been Held That The Provisions Of S. 56(2)(Vii)(B) Are Not Applicable To Stock In Trade But Is Applicable Only To Capital Assets:  Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Ashok Agarwal (Huf)

For Appellant: Shri Nandkishor S. Daga &For Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha

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

purchase value and stamp duty value was required to be added in the hands of the assessee in the light of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, Ld. PCIT initiated proceedings u/s 263 of the Act and the assessment order dated 13.12.2016 was declared as erroneous ... Revenue and the assessment order was set-aside to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine afresh in the light of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and reframe the assessment order after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Vide order dated 30.08.2019, the Assessing

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Mytrah Vayu (Gujarat) Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 690/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT.DRFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Bharadwaj V & Shri

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

Rs.40/- per share. The AO found the assessee to have not justified the premium received and accordingly invoked the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act for making addition of excess amount received in comparison to the Fair Market Value (‘FMV’) of the shares, to the income

Rahul Saini, Noida vs. Assessing Officer ITO, Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3469/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.3469/िद"ी/2025 (िन.व. 2016-17) Rahul Saini, Flat No. 1503, 15Th Floor, Tower-H, Exotica Fresco Plot No. 05A, Noida, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Uttar Pradesh 201304 Pan: Bqpps-8886-J बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Bhawan, A 2 D, Sector-24, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Noida,Uttar Pradesh 201307 अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant By : Shri Sarad Shandillya, Chartered Accountant "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 27/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 25.05.2025, For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Shri Sarad Shandillya, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That The Assessing Officer (Ao) In Violation Of Principal Of Nature Justice Without Affording Sufficient Opportunity Of Making Submissions Has Passed Assessment Order Making The Addition Of Rs.20,14,150/- U/S.69 Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). The Ld. Ar Submits That The Ao

For Appellant: Shri Sarad Shandillya, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िद"ी "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Savegenie E-Marketing Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Gurgoan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3847/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

assessee had, during the course of assessment proceedings, submitted that the valuation for allotment of equity shares was made as per Section 56(2)(vii)(b) read with sub-rule (2) of Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Act on Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method on the basis

Ramasamy Vedarathinam, Chennai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Krishnagiri

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

ITA 2100/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.Lakshmi NarayanaFor Respondent: Mr.Saujanya Ranjan, IRS

Section 250Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Raghunath Narayan Dhote, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Nagpur

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

ITA 505/NAG/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Naresh Jakhotia.A.RFor Respondent: Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR

Section 56(2)(x)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.505/Nag./2024 (Assessment

Mr. Giliyal Chandrashekhara Bhat, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 24(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 750/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR

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

assessee was asked to show cause as to why the said difference should not be added to his total income under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. In response, the assessee submitted that he had taken a flat in the year 2005 and the agreement was entered after ... Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 29.12.2017 passed under section 143(3) of the Act made an addition of Rs.92,85,800/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Further, the AO also rejected the claim of the assessee of set off of unabsorbed business losses under the head

Dimple Rajesh Oswal, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(1), Pune

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

ITA 1506/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Bharat ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Sailee Dhole, JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)(vii)

determining the total income of Rs.19,60,971/- wherein he made addition of Rs.10,76,291/- by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act by observing as under: “4.6. Conclusion drawn. A show cause notice dated 13-11-2023 was issued to the assessee asking ... computation of the SRO value of the property and the fair market value (as claimed) the AO has noticed that provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) are attracted in the present case and the difference of Rs.10,76,291/- (Rs.57,31,291/- minus Rs.46,55,000/-) was added

Madhur Laxman Gadikar, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 4(1), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 406/NAG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemadhur Laxman Gadikar, Kharbikar Mohalla, House No.426–B Ward No.27, Golibar Chowk ……………. Appellant Jaganath Gol, Nagpur-440018, Maharashtra, Pan – Avzpg3725G V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–4(1), Nagpur Assessee By :Shri Abhishek Kumar. A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Kumar. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr. D.R

Section 115BSection 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

amount paid by the assessee is hereby added to the total income of the assessee as per the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 4. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A)/Ld. AO is justified in passing an order where

Kataria Snack Pellets Private Limited, Rajkot vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 468/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.468/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kataria Snack Pellets Pvt. Ltd. The Acit, Circle-1(1) बनाम 510, Gidc, Metoda Kalawad Road Rajkot Rajkot-360021, Gujarat Vs. Pan : Aafck2028L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Nishit B. Jesur, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

present case. (iv) Assessee relied on the CBDT instruction no. F No 173/14/2018-ITA.I wherein it was stated that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act shall not be applicable in case of Start-ups. Assessee in its submission in many place discussed about the start ... norm if any and/or Scientific Data, Scientific Method scientific study and applicable Guidelines regarding DCF Method of Valuation. (vi) Assessee contended that section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act is not applicable to genuine business transaction. In this regard, as per the provisions of Income Tax Act. 1961 56

Aparna Sandeep Kulkarani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Int Tax Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 909/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2015-16 Aparna Sandeep Kulkarni, Income Tax Officer, 201A, Kanchanjanga, Int. Tax. Ward-3(1)(1), Sector 12-A, Plot No.12, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Koparkhairane, Bandra Kurla Complex, Navi Mumbai-400709. Bandra (East), Pan : Axfpk0077M Mumbai-400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ketan L. Vajani For Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 17-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-10-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Ketan L. VajaniFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

erred in not appreciating the fact that the case of the appellant is covered by the first proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and that on application of the said proviso, the transaction value of the flat was more than the value as specified ... Without any prejudice whatsoever to the above grounds, the DRP has failed to appreciate that the 'consideration' as specified in section 56(2)(vii)(b) is not confined to monetary consideration. On the facts of the case, the appreciation of the value of the old flat forgone by the appellant

Madhu Dubey, Allahabad vs. Dc/Ac-1(1), Allahabad, Mg Marg Allahabad

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

ITA 58/ALLD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 Madhu Dubey V. Dc/Ac-1(1) 657A/1, Jamuna Nagar, Chak Mg Marg, Allahabad- Raghunath, Naini-211008. 211001. Pan:Asipd8489J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Naman Agrawal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Naman Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. DR

/and purchase price paid Rs 1.20,00,000i e. Rs 56 06.000/is added to the income of assessee under provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) (ii) of IT Act,1961. (Addition of Rs.56,06,000/-] 5. The assessee has made capital addition of Rs 2 lacs ... pertinent to mention here that even, the gesesses furnished these documents, she would not have been given any benent as section 56(2)(vii)(b) speaks of gift receipt from others up to in aggregate) Rs. 50,000/-. Thus assessee failed to give sufficient evidence regarding this cash introduction

Mahesh Katragadda, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 659/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 263Section 56(2)(x)

Trilok Chand Sain (supra) has dealt with a similar contention and has categorically held that agricultural land is also covered under section 56(2)(vii)(b). The ratio of the said decision squarely applies to the facts of the present case before us. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid

Rudaram Dungararamji Choudhary, Mumbai vs. ITO. 19(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5134/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

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

Ld.AO thus made addition of the differential amount in the stamp duty value by invoking provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the act. 2.3 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, simplified appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 2.4 The Ld.CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee ... stamp duty authority determine the value of the flat at Rs.1,33,64,550/-, cannot be the reason to invoke provisions of section 56 (2)(vii) (b) of the act. He submitted that the 1st payment made by the assessee’s on 18/10/2010 towards the purchase of the flat

Praful Arjun Rane, Mumbai vs. ITO Int Tax Ward-4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1046/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 18Section 56Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH