← All Phrases

“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
69
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
23
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
20
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
18
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
16
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
14
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
14
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
13
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)

Sangeeta Ratilal Panchal, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 2882/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosainsangeeta Ratilal Panchal Vs Ito, Ward-42(1)(5), Room No.945, Room No.2115, Plot No.335 Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai- Tamil Sangam Chawl, Jawahar 400 051 Nagar, Road No.19, Goregaon West, Mumbai-Alapp5767E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, (SR. DR)
Section 156Section 234Section 234BSection 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(21)(vii)

Learned AO and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)] has erred in law and on facts in invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of the transaction for purchase of immovable property, the agreement for which was entered into ... Financial Year 2013-14 through the allotment letter. 3. As per proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b), where the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable property and the date of registration are not the same, the stamp duty value

Hifzur Rehman Ansari, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 163/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeehifzur Rehman Ansari Vs Ito Ward-20(1)(5), Mumbai 1103, Zam Zam Tower Piramal Chambers, Dr Ss Rao Marg, Belvedere Road, Mazgaon, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 010 Pan: Aaapa7928F Applicant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

assesse has taken the following grounds of appeal: - “1. Addition of Rs 34,70,000 against purchase of Mithaiwala Building under Section 56(2)(vii)(b): a. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming ... addition of Rs. 34,70,000. b. The pre-amended provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) (b) of the Income Tax Act, covers only situation where an individual or HUF receives from any person any immovable property without any consideration. The aforesaid provisions was however substituted by Finance

Danish Sheikh, Usa vs. Income Tax Officer Intl Tax Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1034/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 1034/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Danish Sheikh V/S. Ito International Tax, 18, Old Planters Road, बिाम Ward 4(2)(1) Beverly, Usa-999999 Kautilya Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Fjxps3005Q Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Pradip Kapasi राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 43CSection 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(vil)

order u/s 148A (d) and notice u/s 148 were totally ignored (Pg 29 of paper book). GROUND NO. 2 & 5: INAPPLICABILITY OF SECTION 56(2)(vii)(b) LAND AND/OR BUILDING NOT ACQUIRED-PREMISES UNDER CONSTRUCTION P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2016-17 Danish Sheikh Deeming fiction of the provision ... unaccounted funds employed. GROUND NO 6: BENEFIT OF PROVISO TO S.56(2) (VII)(B) DENIED WRONGFULLY The Provisos 1st and 2nd of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) provides that no addition should be made on account of the differencing Agreement Value and the Stamp Duty Value in cases where there

Ajay Kamalkishor Rathi, Amravati vs. I.T.O. - Ward - 4, Amravati

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

ITA 329/NAG/2025[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Swetanshu Dev, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 155(15)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH “SMC”, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016

Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2) Jaipur, Ncrb, Jaipur vs. Sh. Pankaj Meena, Jaipur

In the result, the Cross objection of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 769/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 68

case of the firm and not the partner i.e. the appellant. Therefore, the action of the AO in invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act in respect of the property purchase by the firm, in the hands of the partner i.e. appellant cannot be sustained ... section 56(2) were not applicable in the case of assessee. Kind attention of your honours is invited to provisions of section 56(2)(vii) (b)(ii) as they existed in F.Y. 2011-12, which read as under: Income from other sources. 64 56.(1) Income of every kind which

Neelam Janardhan Rachalwar, Chimur vs. ITO Ward-2, Chandrapur

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 276/NAG/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Jun 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryneelam Janardhan Ito, Ward-2, Chandrapur Rachalwar, Sai Mandir Road, Tilak Ward, Chimur, Vs. Chandrapur, Maharashtra Pan: Adqpr 7539 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shikha Loya, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

market value of the said immovable property was shown at Rs. 1,06,13,000/-, hence, in this case, provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) has been attracted and therefore the Ld. AO in order to verify the said transaction, vide show cause notice dated 24/12/2019, show-caused

Vishnu Soni, Shivpuri vs. ITO, Ashoknagar

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

ITA 38/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Mr. Vishnu Soni Ito, Ashok Nagar, Sadar Bazar, Vs. Aayakar Bawan, Shivpuri, Citiy Centre, Madhya Pradesh-473551 Gwalior, Madhya Pan-Awlps6188C Pradesh-474001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH: AGRA BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Vijay Shankar Pandey, Kolkata vs. Ward 33(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 695/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No. 695/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Vijay Shankar Pandey,………………..………Appellant 4/7A, Commerce House, 2, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata-700013 [Pan:Afspp7040Q] -Vs.- Assessing Officer,……………….…..….…....Respondent Ward-33(2), Kolkata, 10 Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Ms. Sarita Chobey, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: June 24, 2025 O R D E R

Section 56(2)(vii)

from the consideration amount shall not be chargeable to Income tax under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’ under the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on or before 19.11.2018. However, the assessee did not file any explanation in this regard till date

Late Ashok Kumar Murarka Represented Through Wife and Legal Heir Rajbala Murarka, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ncw 4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 887/CHNY/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.887/Chny/2025 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Late Sri Ashok Kumar Muraka, The Income Tax Officer, Represented By Wife & Legal Heir Vs. Non Corporate Ward-4(1), Smt. Rajbala Muraka, Chennai. No.22, Kolandai Street, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003. [Pan: Aaqpa 7031D]

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, C.A (Virtual)
Section 147Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

whereby sale consideration was fixed, therefore the A.O was required to check value as on 20.10.2011 while invoking the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The Ld. AR has relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R. :- 3 -: Hemalatha ... therefore, the market value as on the date of registration of property on 17.07.2015 is to be considered for the purpose of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 5. We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. The assessee entered into an agreement

Swetank Madhuvir Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2155/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarshri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr DR
Section 147Section 234Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL

Gaurav Rajesh Desai, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward -3(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 675/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh / AkshayFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

funds for purchase of the property. The AO subsequently issued a show cause notice asking the assessee as why addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) cannot be invoked in assessee's case considering that the market value of the said property ... dispute. The DVO determined the value of the property at Rs. 2,52,19,000/-. The AO accordingly made an addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act for an amount of Rs. 50,96,667/- being assessee's share of the difference between purchase consideration

Arun Dwivedi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-9(2), New Delhi

ITA 6293/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH

Alok Rai, Allahbad vs. Income Tax Officer NFAC Delhi, Allahabad

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

ITA 48/ALLD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad05 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 115BSection 144Section 144ASection 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

I.T.A. No.48/Alld/2025 Assessment Year:2014-15 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH

Ram Raj Choudhary, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Jaipur

ITA 48/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 56(2)(vii)

they apply for valuation of capital asset under those sections: 3.13 In the present case the Assessing Officer has made addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) without making reference to the Valuation officer as required by the 11 RAM RAJ CHOUDHARY VS ITO, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR above proviso

Rekha Shah, Mumbai vs. AO, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 2311/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeerekha Shah Vs National Faceless Appeal Centre D-614, Veena Santoor, Sector- (Nfac) / Ito-Ward-34(3)(2), 8, Opp. Kvsc, Sai Baba Nagar Mumbai Extension Road, Borivali (W), Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Banda, Mumbai-400 092 Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Abgps4732G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri (SR DR)
Section 144Section 147Section 250

value exceeding Rs.50,000/-, was acquired without consideration. In this case, the property was not acquired without consideration. Therefore, the provision of Section 56(2) (vii) (b) of the Act is not found applicable in this case. This provision was amended by the Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2014 whereby ... this preceding year, as well. It is found from the Memorandum explaining the provision in Finance Act, 2013 that the amendment to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act was not clarificatory in nature. The said memorandum reads as under: "The existing provisions of sub clause (b) of clause

Saurabh Sharvan Gupta, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 52(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2345/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 2345/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Saurabh Sharvan Gupta, Vs Acit, 20, Second Floor, Hari Sadan, Circle-52(1), Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aedpg2454H Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.06.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1071511745(1) Dated 24.12.2024, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

proceeded ex-parte. 3. Learned departmental representative Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav vehemently argues that both the lower authorities herein have rightly made section 56(2)(vii)(b) addition amounting to Rs.18,82,834/- in the assessee’s hands which represents the difference between the actual purchase price of Rs.64

Ibrahim Yakub Doba, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(2)(2), Surat

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

ITA 337/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.337/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Ibrahim Yakub Doba, Vs. The Ito, 11, Mayat Faliya, Kathor, Surat – Ward - 2(2)(2), 394150 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bbvpd5652A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Ms. Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/06/2025

Section 250Section 54BSection 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Chennai vs. M. Mahadevan, Chennai

ITA 1826/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1824/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1825/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1826/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. M.Mahadevan, No.24, Park Avenue Street, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-600 030. [Pan: Aajpm5888R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri G.Gireesh, C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.C.Vatchala, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : The Below Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Appellant Revenue For Ay-2013-14, Ay-2014-15 & 2019-20 Contesting The Order Of Ld. First Appellate Authority Indicated Column-E, Herein Below:- S. No. A Appeal Nos. B Ays C Appellant D Cit(A) Order Details E Respondent F 1

For Respondent: Ms.C.Vatchala, CIT

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री यस यस विश्वनेत्र रवि

Kishor Ramchand Peswani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Int Tax) Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1041/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 1041/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) Kishor Ramchand Peswani V/S. Ito (Int. Tax) Ward B/44 Shiv Society, 2Nd बिाम 3(3)(1), Mumbai Floor, Kopri Colony, Thane 6Th Floor, Income Tax (E), Maharashtra-400603 Office, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Ayapp5403G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Vikas B. Waghmare राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Krishna Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vikas B. WaghmareFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar
Section 144C(1)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the DRP was correct in issuing directions by completely ignoring the proviso of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to payments made by assessee for acquiring the property during F.Y. 2010-11 2. Whether ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the DRP was correct in issuing directions by completely ignoring the proviso of section 56(2)(vii) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to the allotment letter issued by builder and duly acknowledged by petitioner and also supported

Narayanbhai Manjibhai Bodriya, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 41(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4699/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Vaidyalingan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 50CSection 56Section 69

registered agreement and Rs. 1,47,35,000/- being the market value fixed by the stamp duty office, by applying section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii). 4. Before the ld. CIT(A), assessee reiterated the submissions made before the ld. Assessing Officer. After considering the same, additions made were sustained