“section 56(2)(vii)”

Special Rate ProvisionsSection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(vii)741 judgments

PRAVEEN SANJIV,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-7(3), CHENNAI

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

ITA 3834/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3834/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Praveen Sanjiv, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 45, W Block, 7Th Street, Anna Non Corporate Ward 7(3), Nagar, Chennai 600 040. Chennai. [Pan: Fzzps0216R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.12.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Ground No. 1 Raised By The Assessee Is General In Nature & Requires No Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. CIT

Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made on account of variation in respect of issue under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] and alternatively under section 69 of the Act. 4. Brief facts relating ... sources by the assessee issuing show cause notice as is evident from page 4 & 5 of the assessment order, applied provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, added the variation in respect of sale consideration to the total income of the assessee vide pafra

COMMUNIDADE OF CHICALIM,CHICALIM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), PANAJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is partly allowed

ITA 207/PAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.207/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17 ) Comunidade Of Chicalim, Vs Acit Circle 2(1), Ground Floor, St Xavier Aaykar Bhavan, . Church Building, Edc, Patto, Chicalim-403802, Panjim South Goa,Goa. Goa-403001. Pan .No. Aaaabc0196P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 139(5)Section 57Section 74

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G D PADMAHSHALI

SHALBY LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1005/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-D.R

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

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member

SHRI AJAY MAYOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1607/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

rejected the argument that the issue was merely a debatable one, holding that the receipt from the foreign trust was clearly taxable under section 56(2)(vii) of the Act as income from other sources since it was received without consideration. The CIT(Appeals) also referred to the decision

MAHMOOD HUSSAIN SYED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 541/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

considering the fair mark et value of business asset forming part of stock in trade by applying the deeming provisions of section 56(2) (vii) (b) and also ignoring the circumstances involved at the time of purchase where seller had malafide intentions. 5. For these and other ground which ... property, as per the provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and addition of Rs. 2,03,87,170/- under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 towards the difference between purchase consideration and the stamp duty value of the property

SUJATA PRAKASH JAWALE,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(3)(4), MUMBAI

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

ITA 7572/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 56(2)(vii)

erred in confirming the addition of Rs.44,75,913/- without appreciating the fact the applicability of section 56(2)(vii)(b) is prospective from 01.04.2014, whereas the impugned transaction pertains to F.Y. 2010-11 relevant to A.Y. 2011-12., the provision could not have been invoked for the year under ... Ld.AO accordingly, issued show-cause notice calling upon assessee to submit its response as to why the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) should not be applied to the facts of the case. Assessee vide its submissions dated 26/09/2016 submitted that the original agreement of purchase was entered

HITESH SHARMA,KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-PALAMPUR , PALAMPUR

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

ITA 1487/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

notice within limitation, addition of Rs.93,00,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69 und addition of Rs.90,33,000/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) on alleged difference in stamp duty value each of which deserved independent consideration on merits and as such the order passed is arbitrary ... also did not examine the additions of Rs. 93,00,000 under section 69 and Rs. 90,33,000 under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii). It was thus argued that the impugned order being non-speaking and passed in violation of principles of natural justice deserves

ABBAS FAKHRUDDIN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 8297/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms. Rupal Kaku, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (Sr. DR.)

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

property as per stamp duty valuation authority, has been determined according to the SRO at Rs.67,56,275/- and thus the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, attracts in the case”, the case of the Assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing

SIDH FARMS,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 55(5), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the addition made by the Ld

ITA 6672/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6672/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम M/S Sidh Farms Income Tax Officer, 32, Dsidc Jhilmil Industrial Area, Vs. Ward 55(5), Room No.401, Delhi – 110095. D-Block, Vikas Bhawan, Pan No.Acofs1102P I.P. Estate, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

order. 1 1.2 The aggrieved assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds challenging this action. 2. Before us, the Ld. AR argued that section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act pertains to only an individual “or a Hindu undivided family”, whereas this case pertains to a partnership firm ... have carefully considered the rival submissions and have gone through the record before us. We find from a perusal of the language of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act that it is specifically applicable to individuals and HUFs. It is thus clear that since the assessee

NOORUL HASAN SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 25(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7206/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarnoorul Hasan Shaikh Vs. Ito- Ward 25(3)(1) 4, Laxmi Bhavan, P.D’Mello Room 118, 1St Floor, Road. Kautilya Bhavan, Carnac Bunder, Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai - 400001 Bandra (East), Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Apaps5077A (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Dinkle H. Hariya – Advocate Revenue By Shri Brajendra Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 23.12.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below: “1. The Order Is Bad In Law, Illegal & Without Jurisdiction

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

extraneous considerations; (iii) Ignored relevant material and considerations as submitted by the Appellant; (iv) Erroneously come to the conclusion that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) were attracted; and (v) Ignoring that the case was covered by the First Proviso to section 56(2)(vii

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2577/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

income 1,68,000 (12.5)\nDisallowance u/s 24a 25,200 (12.6)\nFair rent 3,40,000 (12.7)\nDeemed dividend (14.1-14.13)\nAddition under Section 56(2)(vii)(c) 92,95,305 (15.1-15.5)\nForeign Travel Expenses\nUnexplained investment u/s 69\nUnexplained money

VIKAS BEDPRAKASH PANDEY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 41(4)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 646/MUM/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Bijayananda Prusethvikas Bedprakash Pandey, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1102 Riddhi Tower, Riddhi Garden 41(4)(4),Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai- Film City Road, Malad E Mumbai- 400051. 400097. Pan/Gir No: Anwpp9823B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Adv. Respondent By Shri Pankaj Kumar (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 O R D E R Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am:

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “J (SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA

ASCENTECH ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1686/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad06 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

For Appellant: MS Sree Lekha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Mathivanan S A, Sr. AR

Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

assessee. The assessee has the option to choose between prescribed methods, and the AO cannot impose a different method.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "56(2)(vii)", "56(2)(viib)", "Rule 11UA" ], "issues": "Whether the Assessing Officer is justified in rejecting the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method of valuation adopted

TIRUCHANGODU RAMASAMY KHANNAIYANN SARASUWATHI,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, COIMBATORE

ITA 3135/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT

Section 142A(6)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

immovable property situated at Kalapatti Village, Coimbatore. 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act are not invocable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 5. For that the Commissioner ... respect of the declared sale consideration and the value determined by the stamp valuation authority, even for the purposes of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act since the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act invariably refer to the provisions of section 50C(2

RAVI VIJAYALAKSHMI,ATHIPATTU vs. ITO, NCW-6(1), CHENNAI

ITA 2887/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(vii)

levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, is sustainable where the addition is made solely by invoking the deeming provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 12. Insofar as the delay before the ld. CIT(A) is concerned, the explanation offered by the assessee

SHRI MANOJ ANAND,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI

ITA 9/PAN/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Shrinivas Nayak & Mr Narcinva Lotlikar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Naveen Kumar [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

SHRI BRIJESH KUMAR ANAND,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI

ITA 8/PAN/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Shrinivas Nayak & Mr Narcinva Lotlikar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Naveen Kumar [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

SANYA DHANANI,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(4), INDORE

In the result the \"Impugned order” is upheld as the same\nhas set aside the “impugned assessment order” and has\nremanded the matter back to the file of Ld

ITA 238/IND/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 251Section 253

back to the AO for extensive factual verification. The original assessment order had made an addition of Rs. 1,99,15,600/- under Section 56(2)(vii)(C). The assessee contended that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law due to the lack of competent authority approval.", "held": "The Tribunal

NEELESH SHYAMSUNDER SABLE,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 51(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 8304/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Respondent: Mr. Sumit Sinha, Adv. (Virtually

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

decided by the AO and as such and it was not a capital asset as decided by the AO and as such Section 56(2) (vii) does not apply Section 56(2) (vii) does not apply 2. That the Appellant had produced various documents on record 2. That the Appellant ... meaning as "expression of property shall have the same meaning as assigned to in clause assigned to in clause (d) of explanation of Section 56(2)(vii) of the (d) of explanation of Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act". 5. The Explanation (d) to 5. The Explanation

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 494/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

Showing 1–20 of 741 · Page 1 of 38

...