“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)

Nibedita Deb Barma, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 60(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 578/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Aug 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 578/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Nibedita Deb Barma,……………….…………..…Appellant 30/7B, Doctor Lane, Taltala, Kolkata-700014 [Pan:Adipd1863D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………..…………..Respondent Ward-60(2), Kolkata, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Bamboo Villa, Kolkata-700014 Appearances By: Shri Ankit Jalan, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Susanta Saha, Sr. D.R., Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 25, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 27, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) firstly reduced the addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) from Rs.8,14,164/- as made by the ld. Assessing Officer in the assessment order to Rs.1,23,156/- 2 Nibedita Deb Barma ... value for stamp duty purposes was lower than initially estimated, therefore, the difference of Rs.1,23,156/- remained the taxable amount under section 56(2)(vii)(b). Ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) was of the view that the provision explicitly states that where the stamp duty value of a property exceeds

Savaligayya Basayya Gaddagimath, Dharwad vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Hubli

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

ITA 1011/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Gunashekhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

issue raised by the assessee is that the learned NFAC/CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4.5 lakh under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. Page 2 of 8 3. The relevant facts are that the assessee is an individual and 76 years ... opinion that the difference between stamp value and actual consideration was liable to tax under the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act, but the assessee has not filed return of income, and the income escaped assessment. Accordingly, the assessment was reopened. 5. During the assessment

Mr. Dilip Marutirao Kalyankar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer International Taxation Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 983/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Dilip Marutirao Kalyankar Ito, International Taxation – C/O. Umesh Kalyankar, 2F-1501, 3(1)(1) Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Sapphire Lakeside Chs, Vs. Off Jvlr, Next To Union Of India Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, Bldg., Powai, Mumbai-400 072 G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Ahopk 3818 M (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. DR)

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

Stamp Valuation Authority determined the value of the property at Rs.1,92,73,500/- for stamp duty purpose. Invoking the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, the A.O. treated the value determined by the Stamp Valuation Authority as deemed sale consideration paid by the assessee ... course of remand proceeding. After verifying the evidences furnished by the assessee, the A.O. has commented as under: III. ADDITION UNDER SECTION 56(2) (vii)(b): The applicant had stated that the AO has made an addition of Rs.46,54,986/-under section 56(2)(vii)(b

Luxeva India Private Limited, Maharashtra vs. NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is allowed with aforesaid consequences to follow

ITA 4495/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms Neha Vikram, CA &For Respondent: Ms Amisha s. Gupt, CIT-DR

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

company raised share premium of Rs.13,96,79,002/-. The AO noted that this attracts the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and accordingly, the AO completed the assessment proceedings thereby making addition of Rs.13,76,90,152/- (Rs.13,96,79,002 - Rs.19 ... decision in ITA No. 1526/Del/2022 M/s.Planet Gogo Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Gurgaon order dated 24.02.23. Thus, the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act have been erroneously invoked. Ground no. 1 to 3 are sustained. Impugned addition is deleted. 6. As with regard

Shri L. Uthayakumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward-4(4), Chennai

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

ITA 1288/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1288/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri L. Uthayakumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 2B, 2Nd Street Extn, Jainagar, Ward 4(4), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [Pan:Aaapu7318P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)18, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 247 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.CIT

Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

stamp duty. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated the difference of ₹.20,40,000/- [₹.1,06,80,000 – 86,40,000] under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] as income from other sources and added to the total income of the assessee ... Sridhar, F.C.A. submits that the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the action of the Assessing Officer in making the addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. He argued that the value determined by 3 I.T.A. No.1288/Chny/25 the Stamp Value Authority does not represent correct stamp value

Sharad Sevantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(3)(6), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4154/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri B. V. Jhaveri, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

apply in this case. The AO may bring to tax the difference between stamp duty value and agreement value under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii)." 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the assessee had paid first instalment of the sale consideration of Rs.54,00,000/- on 27th ... said loan was sanctioned by HDFC Bank on 8th August, 2015. 6. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that 1" proviso to section 56(2)(vii) (b) requires the date of the agreement fixing the amount consideration and not a written and/or registered agreement. 7. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred

Alok Kumar Tripathi, Faizabad vs. CIT(A), NFAC

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

ITA 615/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow12 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Alok Kumar Tripathi V. The Cit(A) Mig-4, Anjanipuram Colony Nfac Dewkali, Faizabad (U.P) Tan/Pan:Akspt2197B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Smt. Anjali Singh, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Anjali Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

stamp duty value of the said property, amounting to Rs.22,91,830/- as income of the assessee and added the same under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The AO completed the assessment under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act, assessing the total income

Mr. Sagir Alam Khan, Keonjhar vs. Income Tax Officer, Keonjhar Ward, Keonjhar

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

ITA 354/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.354/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Mr. Sagir Alam Khan, Vs Ito, Keonjhar Ward, Keonjhar At : Magurgadia, Po: Keonjhargarh Dist : Keonjhar-758001 Pan No. : Anvpk 1400 E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.R.Panda, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri B.R.Panda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

Rs.22 lakhs. The AO had treated the differential amount as Rs.8 lakhs as income of the assessee by applying the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. It was further submitted that the AO had treated the amount of Rs.6 lakhs received by the assessee from

Mr. Hirjiparbat Gada, Mumbai vs. ITO- Circle 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 528/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar- A.Y. 2014-15 - A.Y. 2014-15 - A.Y. 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi a/w Shri Prashant GhumareFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 250Section 43CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 6Section 69

application under section 154 before the Ld.AO for referring to the valuation report. The Ld.AO considering the report of the DVO under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, rectified the order passed U/s 143(3) of the Act and reduced the demand amount to Rs.1

Mr. Hirjiparbat Gada, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 527/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar- A.Y. 2014-15 - A.Y. 2014-15 - A.Y. 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi a/w Shri Prashant GhumareFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 250Section 43CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 6Section 69

Mr. Hirjiparbat Gada, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 526/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 43CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 6Section 69

Gopalsingh Jasraj Rajpurohit, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3961/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 56(2)(vii)

actual purchase consideration of Rs.20 lakhs should not be brought to tax in terms of provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and the assessee was provided time to file his response/explanation by 16-12-2019. Thereafter, in absence of any submissions filed by the assessee

Peer Mohamed Ibrahim, East Avani Moola Street, Madurai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corp.Ward 2(1), Income Tax Office, Madurai

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

ITA 699/CHNY/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 699/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Peer Mohamed Ibrahim, The Income-Tax Officer, No.90-92, East Avani Moola Street, Vs. Non-Corp Ward -2(1), Madurai – 625 001. Madurai.

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pryati Sharma, JCIT

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

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘ए’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री जॉजज जॉजज के, उपाध्यक्ष

Blackberry Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 332/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

while computing Total Income. C. Submissions: 1.0 Before proceeding further, appellant would like to refer to the relevant provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) which provides that: (viib) where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year, from

Hasha Kacharu Tandel, Raigad vs. ITO Ward-2, Panvel

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

ITA 2075/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

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

without any consideration and as per the terms recorded between the promoters and Purchasers in the Development agreement dated 25.07.2007" Further, the section 56(2) (vii) (b) of the Act states as under: "56(2)(vii) where an individual or a Hindu undivided family receives, in any previous year, from ... such immovable property;" Thus, it is clear that from one of the agreements for registration dated 18.02.2014 that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) are clearly attracted. Further, the appellant neither during the course of assessment proceedings nor during the appellate proceedings submitted any explanation for not invoking

Oveen Naveen Lewis, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Int. Tax Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 775/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 147Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI (ACCOUNTANT

Harneetkaur Baljeetsingh Saluja, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 24(21)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4012/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

value adopted by the stamp duty authority at Rs.88,69,500/- amounting to Rs.6,94,500/-, invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 4. The assessee thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has since sustained the said order

Mohd Arif, Etawah vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(5), Etwah, Etawah

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

ITA 271/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17] Mohd. Arif, Income Tax Officer, 68, Huiganj Pachraha, Etawah, Ward-2(2)(5), Income Tax Office, Etawah, Uttar Pradesh-206001 Vs Civil Lines, Etawah, Uttar Pradesh-207001 Pan-Anapa8542J Appellant Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 282Section 54Section 56(2)(vii)

Assessing Officer also show-caused to make another addition of Rs.97,14,000/- by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) on the ground that the stamp value of the property shown to have been purchased for Rs.15 lakhs on the date of purchase was Rs.1

Kailashchandra Haumanprasad Sugla, Solapur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Solapur

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

ITA 1555/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1555/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kailashchandra Haumanprasad V The Income Tax Officer, Sugla, S Ward-1(1), Solapur. 45/15, Samrat Chowk, Budhwar Peth, Prabhakar Nagar H/S, Solapur-413001. Maharashtra. Pan: Ahsps3244B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-3, Chennai Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16Dated 12.10.2023, Emanating From Order U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 26.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 272A(1)(c)Section 41(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

vii)(b) by disregarding appellant's contention that said land is purchased by the appellant as stock in trade therefore provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) are not applicable, therefore the entire addition needs to be deleted 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Assessing

Pritiben Hiteshbhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(5), Surat

ITA 1247/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

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

Block No. 128 and addition of Rs. 1,17,947/- qua Block No. 127 thereby adding Rs. 8,12,020/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b). The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of Assessing Officer by simply holding that the Assessing Officer was bound to adopt the value