“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)

Prerna Pramod Kadam, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(2)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 891/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 2003 & 2004/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & In The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal “J(Smc)” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 891/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

husband is already completed without any additions under section 69A. 3. The Hon J C IT has erred in making addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of Rs 5,30,000/- being the Difference in the value as per Agreement and Value as per the Order ... difference of Rs. 40,93,000/- between the stamp duty value and the purchase consideration paid after invoking provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. As the assessee was a co- owner of the property with her husband who had made the entire investment

Prerna Pramod Kadam, Mumbai vs. 20(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 2004/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

Prerna Pramod Kadam, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(2)(1), Lalbaug Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 2003/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

Bigstar Hotels Resorts Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 5(1), New Delhi

ITA 3351/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 250

ITA No.3351/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI "A" BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Sushma Haresh Ubale, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 1274/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. D/R

Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON

Ipsaa Holdings Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle 4(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 2720/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 56

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI

ITO, Ward-2(1), Thane vs. Chalk Farm Ventures Private Limited, Bhayender East

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

ITA 3492/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: The Hon'Ble High Court. 2. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case, Since The Revenue Is In Appeal Before The Hon'Ble High Court On The Itat'S Decision, Which Is Pending As On Date, This Appeal Is Being Filed To Keep The Issue Alive. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend Or Alter Any Ground/Grounds, Which May Be Necessary.”

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Kalptaru Infrabuild, Ahmedabad vs. PCIT-3 Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 750/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

valorem stamp duty rate of 4.9%, the stamp duty valuation of the property worked out to Rs.1,26,12,245/-. According to Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act, where a property is purchased for less than its stamp duty value, the difference is taxable as “Income from ... duty valuation, had considered submissions made on 14.03.2023, and referred the matter to the DVO under Section 55A. The assessee submitted that Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) was not applicable as it applied only to Kalptaru Infrabuild vs. PCIT Asst.Year –2017-18 - 3– individuals and HUFs

Madhu Lakhiram Sharma, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 16(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2506/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 2506/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18) Madhu Lakhiram V/S. Income Tax Officer Sharma बिाम Ward -16(1)(3, Mumbai. 502, Juhu Sea Spray, Janki Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai- Kutir, Off Juhu Tara Road, 400012 Juhu, Mumbai 400049 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aqnps7808M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Anil Thakrar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Shri Anil ThakrarFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

|आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण न्यायपीठ, म ुंबई| IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K (SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

Jaiprakash Yadav, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, WD, Behror

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv. (Thr.VC)For Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Aavishkar Oral Strips Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 369/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Bhupal Goud, C.A

Section 115JSection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

both in law and on facts in and determined excess share premium of Rs.1,04,89,040/- and brought to tax under section 56(2)(vii)(b), which is not a valid act and order. That the learned AO, has failed to appreciate the valuation method adopted by the appellant

Tutor Investment& Finance Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1736/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the ITAT, Mumbai Bench “E”, which, vide its order in ITA No. 6752/Mum/2017 dated 15.06.2018, upheld the revisionary order passed under Section 263 of the Act.

For Appellant: Shri Snehal ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 263Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

revised the said assessment order passed by the Ld. AO under section 143(3), on the ground that the implications of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act were not adequately examined. The said revision order was challenged by the assessee before the ITAT, Mumbai Bench “E”, which ... framed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act and made an addition of Rs.1.40 crores under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The said addition pertained to the issuance of 10 lakh shares by the assessee at Rs.200 per share

Ketan Himatlal Mehta, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. NFAC, Not Applicable

Accordingly, order the CIT(A) is overturned and the addition of LTCG of INR.6,30,873/- is deleted. Thus, Ground No. 3 raised by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2497/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: making this addition in the Appellate Order. Reasons assigned by him are wrong and insufficient. Therefore, Appellant prays for the deletion the addition of Rs.6,30,873 as confirmed by the Learned CIT(A).

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Kavita P. Kaushik

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 50CSection 56(2)(x)

determined by the stamp duty authority is within a permissible limit. 15. The reason for not providing such an exception in section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) is patent and obvious. As could be seen, the amendments to sections 50C, 56(2)(x) and 43CA providing for exception in case ... with effect from 1-4-2019. Meaning thereby, the legislature did not felt the necessity of introducing such an exception to section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) simply for the reason that such provision was applicable for a period between 1st October, 2009 to 1st April, 2017. Therefore, non-introduction

Abilash Rao Joseph, Usa vs. Income Tax Officer (International Taxation)-1, Hyderabad

ITA 105/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri A V Raghu RamFor Respondent: Sri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

unsustainable on facts and in law. 2. The AO/DRP erred in making addition of Rs.26,37,000 by invoking provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(il) of the Income Tax Act which was introduced by Finance Act, 2013, w.e.f. 1.4.2014. The authorities below failed to appreciate that the Appellant ... payments was made in the Fy 2010-11 and AOS was entered into on 21.03.2012, during which period, the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) was not on the Income Tax Act. 3. Without prejudice to the above ground, the authorities below failed to appreciate that since

ACIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Mangalprabhat Gumanmal Lodha, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2246/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Seth, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. D/R

Section 24Section 56(2)(vii)

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates the taxation of the difference between the stamp duty value and the actual consideration ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) failed to take into account the amendment to Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) w.e.f. 1st April 2021, which further clarified the scope of the provisions relating to the taxation of the difference between the stamp duty

Thermodyne Dynamics Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward -17(3), Hyderabad

ITA 500/HYD/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Us :

For Appellant: Shri Pawan KumarFor Respondent: Shri B. Balakrishna -CIT-

Section 11USection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 56

Thermodyne Dynamics Private Limited Vs. ITO the said statutory provision itself. Our aforesaid view can safely be gathered from a perusal of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, wherein the “1st Proviso” and “2nd Proviso” have been appended, as per which in case the assessee had entered into ... therein envisaged it will be the stamp duty value on the date of the “agreement” (supra) that is to be adopted. Unlike Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, as there is no such exception provided by the legislature in Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act, therefore

Raj Kumar Sirwani, Mandla vs. Income Tax Officer, Mandla Ward, Mandla

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

ITA 37/JAB/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 Raj Kumar Sirwani V. Income Tax Officer, Pamnani Chowk, Subhash Mandla Ward, Madhya Pradesh- Income Office, Mandla, 481661. Madhya Pradesh-481661. Pan:Ausps7713E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Dr. H. S. Modh, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 20 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Dr. H. S. Modh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

against the returned income at Rs.3,17,790/-. 3. That the addition made for Rs.7,62,500/- on account of provision of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of IT Act, 1961, is unjustified. 4. That the addition confirmation of purchase of immovable property at Rs.5,91,550/- considered unexplained investment

Rajendra Singh Bagga, Damoh vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, Katni

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

ITA 187/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Rajendra Singh Bagga, 15 43, Tandon Vs. National Faceless Assessment Bagicha, College Road, Gayatri Nagar, Centre, Delhi [Jurisdiction Damoh, M.P. Officer-Acit Katni-Circle, Katni Pan:Adgpb8418G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, Fca Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 14.10.2024 Whereby Learned Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Orders Of The Learned Ao Under Section 147 Read With Section 144 Dated 30.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Passing Ex- Party Order Without Providing Adequate Opportunity As Only Three Dates For Hearing Were Fixed & That Too In The Peak Periods Of Filling Of Tax Audits, Income Tax Returns & Accordingly Assessee Was Busy In Filling His Audit Report /Itr & Had Seeked Adjournment Also In This Regard. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Cit (A) Erred In Confirming Addition Of 6 Lacs Under Section 68, When Ao Himself Admitting In The Assessment Order That The Difference Of 5% 'Was Applicable As Allowable Difference Between Circle Rate & Actual Rate Of Purchase Of Property. Hence Forth The Addition Of Rs 6 Lacs Should Have Been Deleted By Ao.

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68Section 69

observed that the assessee had purchased an immovable property below stamp duty value and therefore in his opinion, attracted the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) to the extent of Rs. 5,99,420/-. He issued a notice under section 148 and subsequent notices including a show cause notice

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Kanpur vs. Hari Shanker Gupta, Kanpur

The Appeal of the Department stands dismissed

ITA 648/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 The Dcit V. Hari Shanker Gupta Circle – 1(1) 533/2/1, Guba Garden Kanpur Kalyanpur, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aefpg4405G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) Respondent By: Shri Govind Krishna, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 03 06 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Govind Krishna, C.A

Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) was of Rs.1,79,68,225/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’). He further submitted that the NFAC, vide impugned order, allowed the appeal of the assessee

Shri Kaushik Chakraborty, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 61(2), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 838/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A