← All Phrases

“Section 56(2)(vii)(a)”

Section References (mined)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)(a)19 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 56(2)(vii)(a) is Rajeev Kumar Agarwal v. ACIT (149 ITD 363), cited in 104 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 56(2)(vii)(a)

Rajeev Kumar Agarwal v. ACIT
149 ITD 363 · 2014 · ITAT
104
citing judgments

Curative amendments, such as a proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) introduced to remove undue hardship, apply retrospectively even without specific legislative declaration, rectifying shortcomings and obviating unintended difficulties.

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.

CIT v. Mukundray K. Shah, Citation No.
160 Taxmann 276 · 2007 · Supreme Court
39
citing judgments

Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, aims to prevent tax evasion by treating certain payments made by closely held companies to shareholders or their concerns as dividends.

ICDS Ltd. v. CIT
10 SCC 529 · Reported
24
citing judgments

The Supreme Court remands a matter when an assessee is deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine individuals whose statements were relied upon by the Revenue under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act.

Ors., 1963 AIR 1526 17. ITO vs. B.N. Bhattacharya, 112 ITR 423 18. R. Dalmia v. CIT (Central)
186 ITR 313 · 1990 · High Court
24
citing judgments

The case addresses the taxability of cash withdrawn from sub-contractors' bank accounts by employees of a civil contractor engaged in infrastructure development. The revenue observed these withdrawals during search proceedings, indicating potential issues with the assessee's tax compliance.

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.

370 ITR 720 (Allahabad) 9. Star Chemical (P.) Ltd. v. CIT
12 Taxmann.com 496 · 2011 · High Court
21
citing judgments

When lending money is not the business of a company, loans or advances given to an assessee-shareholder are treated as deemed dividends under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act. The provisions of section 2(22)(e) apply to a company that has taken a loan from its subsidiary.

CIT v. Smt Padma S. Bora
54 Taxmann.com 319 · 2015 · High Court
21
citing judgments

A debt written off in the assessee's books as irrecoverable, which was advanced in the ordinary course of business, is allowable as a deduction. The court noted that the Tribunal may have made a mistake in reproducing the Commissioner's findings, but this did not raise a substantial question of law regarding the allowability of bad debts.

Judgments citing Section 56(2)(vii)(a)

Subhash Suryakant Phadkar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 35(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed in above terms

ITA 3490/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am Mr. Subhash Suryakant Phadkar, Income Tax Officer, B-184, Kalpataru Sparkle, Bandra East, Ward 35(3)(4), Vs. Mumbai- 400051 Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai- 400051 Pan No.Aaapp3456H (Appellant) (Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Mayur Makadia, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha P. Kaushik, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54Section 54E

payment of Rs.53.50 lakhs to each member of the society. The Revenue held the receipt to be income from other sources as per section 56(2)(vii)(a) of the Act, where any sum of money received exceeding Rs.50,000/- without consideration is chargeable as “income from other sources

Simatajvar Yusufkhan Khan, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(5), Vadodara

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 243/AHD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Us Is The Same, Arising In The Backdrop Of Identical Set Of Facts, Therefore, All The Appeals Were Taken Up Together For Hearing & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common & Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Ms. Kaushani Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

because of the disputes centered on the lands they had parted with in year 1968. These receipts clearly fall in the scope of section 56(2)(vii)(a), and the AO has rightly taxed the same under the head Income from other sources. Accordingly, the addition

Simatajvar Yusufkhan Khan, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(5), Vadodara

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 242/AHD/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Us Is The Same, Arising In The Backdrop Of Identical Set Of Facts, Therefore, All The Appeals Were Taken Up Together For Hearing & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common & Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Ms. Kaushani Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

because of the disputes centered on the lands they had parted with in year 1968. These receipts clearly fall in the scope of section 56(2)(vii)(a), and the AO has rightly taxed the same under the head Income from other sources. Accordingly, the addition

Simatajvar Yusufkhan Khan, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1(5), Vadodara

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 241/AHD/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Us Is The Same, Arising In The Backdrop Of Identical Set Of Facts, Therefore, All The Appeals Were Taken Up Together For Hearing & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common & Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Ms. Kaushani Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

because of the disputes centered on the lands they had parted with in year 1968. These receipts clearly fall in the scope of section 56(2)(vii)(a), and the AO has rightly taxed the same under the head Income from other sources. Accordingly, the addition

Simatajvar Yusufkhan Khan, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(1(5, Vadodara

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 240/AHD/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Us Is The Same, Arising In The Backdrop Of Identical Set Of Facts, Therefore, All The Appeals Were Taken Up Together For Hearing & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common & Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Ms. Kaushani Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

because of the disputes centered on the lands they had parted with in year 1968. These receipts clearly fall in the scope of section 56(2)(vii)(a), and the AO has rightly taxed the same under the head Income from other sources. Accordingly, the addition

Delight Propcon Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1267/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.M/S Delight Propcon Private Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Limited Shop No. 68, Building Income Tax, No. 38, Surya House, Near Central Circle-Ii, New Cgo Pnb Devil Road, Khanpur, Complex, N. H. Iv, Nit New Delhi Faridabad, Haryana-121001 Pan: Aadcd6203E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By Sh. Suman Malik, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025 Order

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 68

invoked as the said section is applicable in the case of seller of the property only while the appellant is a buyer. Section 56(2)(vii)(a) and Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act are also not applicable in case of partnership firm or LLP and the assessee

ACIT, Chennai vs. Updater Services Limited, Chennai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by both the assessee and the Revenue, as well as the grounds raised in the cross-objections filed by the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical...

ITA 1616/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1339 /Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Updater Services Limited (Formerly Dcit, Known As Updater Services Private Vs. Central Circle -2(3), Limited), No.2/302-A, Uds Salai, Chennai. Off Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. [Pan:Aaacu-6845-J] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. K. Prasanna, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 115QSection 250Section 263Section 391Section 77A

chargeable to tax if such difference exceeds INR 50,000. • The term 'property' has been exhaustively defined in clause (d) of Explanation to Section 56(2)(vii). The relevant extracts of the same is produced below: • “……Property means the following capital asset of the assessee, namely: (i) Immovable property being ... securities • From the above definition it is clear that for shares and securities to fall within the ambit of property as defined under Section 56(2)(vii), they must constitute a "capital asset" in the hands of the person receiving such shares. • It is a well settled position that shares

M/S. Updater Services Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Chennai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by both the assessee and the Revenue, as well as the grounds raised in the cross-objections filed by the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical...

ITA 1339/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1339 /Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Updater Services Limited (Formerly Dcit, Known As Updater Services Private Vs. Central Circle -2(3), Limited), No.2/302-A, Uds Salai, Chennai. Off Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. [Pan:Aaacu-6845-J] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. K. Prasanna, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 115QSection 250Section 263Section 391Section 77A

chargeable to tax if such difference exceeds INR 50,000. • The term 'property' has been exhaustively defined in clause (d) of Explanation to Section 56(2)(vii). The relevant extracts of the same is produced below: • “……Property means the following capital asset of the assessee, namely: (i) Immovable property being ... securities • From the above definition it is clear that for shares and securities to fall within the ambit of property as defined under Section 56(2)(vii), they must constitute a "capital asset" in the hands of the person receiving such shares. • It is a well settled position that shares

ACIT, Circle-3(1), Gurugram vs. Sunil Kumar, Gurugram

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 68

that it represented outstanding liability for many preceding assessment years. Rejected accordingly. 6. The Revenue’s third substantive ground herein seeking to revive section 56(2)(vii)(a) addition of Rs.6 lakhs also meets same fate since the assessee has all along proved the same to have been received from

Pravinbhai Jethabhai Patel, Kheda vs. The ITO, Ward-5, Nadiad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 137/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalpravinbhai Jethabhai Patel, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Teen Khadki, Nr. Bar Ni Khadki, Ward-5, Village-Nar, Tal. Petlad, Nandiad. Kheda-388150. [Pan :Biqpp9029 K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Jamin Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Bp Makwana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.11.2024, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short), U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri Jamin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri BP Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 210Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Aachman Vanijya Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue and cross-objection by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 385/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 1ISection 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viia)

case and in law, whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 56(2)(vii)(a) of the Act amounting to Rs. 7,85,55,233/-, considering that the assessee had submitted only confirmation letter regarding the transfer of shares

Dhruv Sanjay Gupta, Mumbai vs. JCIT, Range 27(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5749/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.R Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

According to the assessee, these gifts were received on the occasion of his marriage and therefore, is exempted under the proviso to section 56(2)(vii). However, according to the ld. Assessing Officer, these gifts were received by the assessee after the occasion of the marriage, based on dates ... Officer has taken a microscopic view of the meaning “on the occasion of marriage” without going into the intent of the proviso to section 56(2)(vii), since the cheques were realised at a later date which were given by the respective donors and were received by the assessee

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Nellore vs. Bathina Srilakshmi, Nellore

ITA 83/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.Praveen,DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

only the cash gift was received by her from Smt. D. Rajeswaramma, i.e., her relative who was not covered within the meaning of section 56((2)(vii)(a) of the Act, but, had also claimed that the said cash gift was received by her on 05.03.2014, i.e in clear contradiction

Sarkar Talwar, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward-II(3), Faridabad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2869/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CA and Shri Parth Singhal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154

nature of appreciation of his personal achievements and talent and thus, cannot be brought to tax by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(a) of the Act. This proceeds from benefit match received by assessee is in appreciation of his past achievements in the International Cricket arena

Shiv Kumar Jolly, Jammu vs. DCIT (Intl. Tax), Chandigarh

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

ITA 721/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rishab Singla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 69A

these deposits, disclosing its origin and the name of the person who has transferred the funds, cumulatively totalling to Rs. 47,49,824/-. Section 56(2)(vii)(a) of IT Act provides that where an individual receives in any previous year from any person or persons any sum of money ... shall be chargeable to income tax under the head income from other sources. However as per clause (a) of the second proviso to Section 56(2)(vii) of the IT Act, if the said amount is received from any relative then the same cannot be included as an income

Lalit Kumar Modi, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-11(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 398/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2011-12 Mr. Lalit Kumar Modi, Vs. Dcit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Circle 11(1), New Delhi-110 014. New Delhi. Pan Aappm4175M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 17(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68Section 69C

while bringing new source of income. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(a) are not attracted on the facts of the case. 4. That the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition

Chandarani N.Goyal, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3661/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251Section 251(2)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

next ground, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs.25 lakh made by the learned CIT(A) under section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. 4. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The brief facts of the case, as emanating from ... amount of Rs.25 lakh received by the assessee as deposit is taxable in the hands of the assessee as per the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(a) of the Act. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) directed the AO to tax Rs.25 lakh in the hands of the assessee

M/S. Ukn Properties Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1739/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

K V Sridhar, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2716/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2012-13 Shri. K. V. Sridhar, Vs. Ito No.2029, 2Nd Floor, 26Th Cross, Ward – 3(2)(2), Banashankari 2Nd Stage, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 070. Pan : Abops 8745 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14Section 56(2)(vii)Section 89

under the head “Income from Other Sources”. The CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO by relying on the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) which reads as follows: “56. (1) Income of every kind which