Section 56(2)(vi)(b) — 7 judgments | BharatTax

SURESH KUMAR PAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO WAD-22(3), MUMBAI

ITA 723/MUM/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250(6)Section 56(2)(vi)

grounds of appeal: “1.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT erred in making addition under section 56(2)(vi)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.27,57,665/- being Assessment Year 2017-2018 difference between value of purchase consideration

YAKUB IBRAHIM DOBA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(2)(5), SURAT

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

ITA 322/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.322/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Yakub Ibrahim Doba Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1 Maiyat Faliya, At: Kathor Tal: 2(2)(5) Kamrej, Surat-394150 Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bqkpd0801P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

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

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

GUMMADI SARASWATHI,TENALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TENALI

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

ITA 375/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 375/Viz/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) Gummadi Saraswathi V. Income Tax Officer - Ward – 1 C/O. Ca Mv Prasad Income Tax Office First Floor D.No. 19-15-47 Opposite Prasad & Co Contractors Opp. Sai Baba Temple D.No. 6-3-871, Snehalata Tenali – 522201 Greenlands Road, Begumpet Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad – 500016 [Pan:Amapg7100K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 147Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

purchase value and stamp value of the immovable property) under the head income from other sources as required under the provision of section 56(2)(vi)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"] after taking necessary approval from the competent authorities

INCOME TAX OFFICER -42(1)(3), MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BKC, BANDRA, MUMBAI vs. KRISHNA DEEP BUILDERS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6240/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am Krishna Deep Builders Ito Ward – 42(1)(3) B/203, 2Nd Floor, Goyal Shopping Arcade, Room No. 715, Kautilya Bhavan, C- Opp. Railway Station, S. V. Road, Vs. 41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Borivali, West, Mumbai – 400092. Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. Aaafk375Q (Assessee) : (Respondent) Ito Ward – 42(1)(3) Krishna Deep Builders Room No. 715, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To B/203, 2Nd Floor, Goyal Shopping C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Arcade, Opp. Railway Station, S. V. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. Road, Borivali, West, Mumbai – 400092. Pan/Gir No. Aaafk375Q (Assessee) : (Respondent) : Shri. Ajay Singh Assessee By Respondent By : Shri. Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The

For Respondent: Shri. Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vi)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, AM Krishna

KRISHNA DEEP BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-42(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5768/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am Krishna Deep Builders Ito Ward – 42(1)(3) B/203, 2Nd Floor, Goyal Shopping Arcade, Room No. 715, Kautilya Bhavan, C- Opp. Railway Station, S. V. Road, Vs. 41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Borivali, West, Mumbai – 400092. Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. Aaafk375Q (Assessee) : (Respondent) Ito Ward – 42(1)(3) Krishna Deep Builders Room No. 715, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To B/203, 2Nd Floor, Goyal Shopping C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Arcade, Opp. Railway Station, S. V. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. Road, Borivali, West, Mumbai – 400092. Pan/Gir No. Aaafk375Q (Assessee) : (Respondent) : Shri. Ajay Singh Assessee By Respondent By : Shri. Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The

For Respondent: Shri. Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vi)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, AM Krishna

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MEERUT, MEERUT vs. SMT. KAMLESH, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2152/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Vs. Smt. Kamlesh, Central Circle, 1402/1403, Vidhyanchal Meerut Tower, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad Pan :Akypk3905E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rohit Agarwal, Ca Department By Ms. Jaya Choudhary, Cit(Dr)

Section 153ASection 56(2)(vi)Section 68

onus of proving genuineness/creditworthiness of the impugned unsecured loans in foregoing terms. Rejected accordingly. 9. Next comes the second issue of section 56(2)(vi)(b)(ii) addition of Rs.43.73 lakhs representing the actual difference between the stamp price paid by the assessee of Rs.58.73 lakhs as against the actual

SMT HIRAL DHAVAL KOTHARI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD 30(1) (4), MUMBAI

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

ITA 223/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Hiral Dhaval Kothari, Ito, Ward-30(1)(4), B-403, Sanskriti Building, Kautilya Bhavan, Kedermal Road, Malad (East) Vs. Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 097. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aumpk 5669 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Prateek Jha & Mr. Prayag Jha, Ars Revenue By : Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Prateek Jha &For Respondent: Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, DR

Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

Duty the value of the property was taken at the assessee às income from Other Sources as per the deeming provisions of section 56(2)(vi)(b). There is no requirement in the law that any on money payment need to be established for making the addition. 5.3 The reliance ... agreement value and ready reckoner value should not be added to the total income of the assessee according with the provision of section 56(2)(vi)b). In response to the show cause the assessee's AR submitted a letter dated 23.11.2017. The AR stated that the property has been

“Section 56(2)(vi)(b)”