“section 56(2)(vii)”

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

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

Leading authorities on section 56(2)(vii)

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

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

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

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

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The case addresses the taxability of cash withdrawn from sub-contractors' bank accounts by employees of a civil contractor engaged in infrastructure development.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

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

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

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)

Shri L. Uthayakumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward-4(4), Chennai

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

ITA 1288/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1288/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri L. Uthayakumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 2B, 2Nd Street Extn, Jainagar, Ward 4(4), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [Pan:Aaapu7318P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)18, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 247 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.CIT

Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

purpose of stamp duty. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated the difference of ₹.20,40,000/- [₹.1,06,80,000 – 86,40,000] under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] as income from other sources and added to the total income ... Sridhar, F.C.A. submits that the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the action of the Assessing Officer in making the addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. He argued that the value determined by 3 I.T.A. No.1288/Chny/25 the Stamp Value Authority does not represent correct stamp value

Sharad Sevantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(3)(6), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4154/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri B. V. Jhaveri, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

However, these are post facto affirmations and cannot substitute for the absence of a written agreement. Therefore, the provisos to section 56(2)(vii) do not apply in this case. The AO may bring to tax the difference between stamp duty value and agreement value under section 56(2)(vii ... said loan was sanctioned by HDFC Bank on 8th August, 2015. 6. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that 1" proviso to section 56(2)(vii) (b) requires the date of the agreement fixing the amount consideration and not a written and/or registered agreement. 7. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred

The New Vikash Co-Op. House Building Society Ltd., Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4507/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2010-11] The New Vikash Co. House Vs Ito, Building Society Ltd., Ward-2(1), Advocate-Vijay Kumar Gupta, Faridabad. Opp.Jain Mandir-Main Bazar, Ballabgarh, Faridabad-121004 Pan-Aaajt1595P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta, Adv. Respondent By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.08.2025 Order

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

ITA No.4507/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “B” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Alok Kumar Tripathi, Faizabad vs. CIT(A), NFAC

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

ITA 615/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow12 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Alok Kumar Tripathi V. The Cit(A) Mig-4, Anjanipuram Colony Nfac Dewkali, Faizabad (U.P) Tan/Pan:Akspt2197B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Smt. Anjali Singh, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Anjali Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

stamp duty value of the said property, amounting to Rs.22,91,830/- as income of the assessee and added the same under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The AO completed the assessment under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act, assessing the total income

Mr. Sagir Alam Khan, Keonjhar vs. Income Tax Officer, Keonjhar Ward, Keonjhar

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

ITA 354/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.354/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Mr. Sagir Alam Khan, Vs Ito, Keonjhar Ward, Keonjhar At : Magurgadia, Po: Keonjhargarh Dist : Keonjhar-758001 Pan No. : Anvpk 1400 E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.R.Panda, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri B.R.Panda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

Rs.22 lakhs. The AO had treated the differential amount as Rs.8 lakhs as income of the assessee by applying the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. It was further submitted that the AO had treated the amount of Rs.6 lakhs received by the assessee from

Mr. Hirjiparbat Gada, Mumbai vs. ITO- Circle 24(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 528/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar- A.Y. 2014-15 - A.Y. 2014-15 - A.Y. 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi a/w Shri Prashant GhumareFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 250Section 43CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 6Section 69

rectification application under section 154 before the Ld.AO for referring to the valuation report. The Ld.AO considering the report of the DVO under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, rectified the order passed U/s 143(3) of the Act and reduced the demand amount to Rs.1

Mr. Hirjiparbat Gada, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 24(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 527/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar- A.Y. 2014-15 - A.Y. 2014-15 - A.Y. 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi a/w Shri Prashant GhumareFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 250Section 43CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 6Section 69

Mr. Hirjiparbat Gada, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 24(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 526/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 43CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 6Section 69

Gopalsingh Jasraj Rajpurohit, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3961/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 56(2)(vii)

Rs.1,52,30,016/- and the actual purchase consideration of Rs.20 lakhs should not be brought to tax in terms of provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and the assessee was provided time to file his response/explanation by 16-12-2019. Thereafter, in absence

DCIT Central Circle 05, Delhi vs. Deepak Kothari, Kanpur

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

ITA 1834/DEL/2021[20017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025

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

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

pages 8 to 10 of the assessment order. After considering the same, AO rejected the same. He observed that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c) are attracted in this case wherein assessee has claimed STCL of Rs.5,35,67,381/-. The AO observed that the assessee has received ... paid by the assessee for acquisition of bonus shares i.e. NIL should not be treated as assessee’s income as per provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act. In response, assessee submitted that there is no taxable event on issue of bonus shares and the provisions

Deepak Kathari, Kanpur vs. ACIT, CC-5, New Delhi

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

ITA 1205/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

Blackberry Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 332/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

while computing Total Income. C. Submissions: 1.0 Before proceeding further, appellant would like to refer to the relevant provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) which provides that: (viib) where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year, from

Hasha Kacharu Tandel, Raigad vs. ITO Ward-2, Panvel

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

ITA 2075/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(1)(vii)Section 56(2)Section 69

area) without any consideration and as per the terms recorded between the promoters and Purchasers in the Development agreement dated 25.07.2007" Further, the section 56(2) (vii) (b) of the Act states as under: "56(2)(vii) where an individual or a Hindu undivided family receives, in any previous year ... transfer of such immovable property;" Thus, it is clear that from one of the agreements for registration dated 18.02.2014 that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) are clearly attracted. Further, the appellant neither during the course of assessment proceedings nor during the appellate proceedings submitted any explanation

Oveen Naveen Lewis, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Int. Tax Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 775/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 147Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI (ACCOUNTANT

Harneetkaur Baljeetsingh Saluja, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 24(21)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4012/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

value adopted by the stamp duty authority at Rs.88,69,500/- amounting to Rs.6,94,500/-, invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 4. The assessee thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has since sustained the said order ... tolerance limit as prescribed under 3rd proviso to Section 50C(1) of the Act where it equally applies in the context of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act and no addition should therefore be made in the hands of the assessee. 6. In this regard, during the course

Jai Bhagwan, Vpo Badshahpur, Gurgaon, Hr vs. Income Tax Officer, Gurgaon, Haryana

The appeal stands allowed and the concurrent findings of the AO and CIT(A) are hereby affirmed

ITA 3239/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrajai Bhagwan Vs. Income Tax Officer Vpo Badshahpur Income Tax Building Gurgaon Gurugram- 122001 Haryana-122001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Amapb8989P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 2Section 28Section 4Section 56

received on compensation or enhanced compensation is liable to tax as income from other sources. Further this is to be pointed out that sections 56(2)(vii), 145 A(b) and 57 (v) have been introduced by Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 with effect from 01.04.2010 as below:- ………………………………………. From plain reading

Mohd Arif, Etawah vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(5), Etwah, Etawah

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

ITA 271/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17] Mohd. Arif, Income Tax Officer, 68, Huiganj Pachraha, Etawah, Ward-2(2)(5), Income Tax Office, Etawah, Uttar Pradesh-206001 Vs Civil Lines, Etawah, Uttar Pradesh-207001 Pan-Anapa8542J Appellant Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 282Section 54Section 56(2)(vii)

Assessing Officer also show-caused to make another addition of Rs.97,14,000/- by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) on the ground that the stamp value of the property shown to have been purchased for Rs.15 lakhs on the date of purchase was Rs.1

Kailashchandra Haumanprasad Sugla, Solapur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Solapur

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

ITA 1555/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1555/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kailashchandra Haumanprasad V The Income Tax Officer, Sugla, S Ward-1(1), Solapur. 45/15, Samrat Chowk, Budhwar Peth, Prabhakar Nagar H/S, Solapur-413001. Maharashtra. Pan: Ahsps3244B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-3, Chennai Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16Dated 12.10.2023, Emanating From Order U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 26.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 272A(1)(c)Section 41(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

2)(vii)(b) by disregarding appellant's contention that said land is purchased by the appellant as stock in trade therefore provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) are not applicable, therefore the entire addition needs to be deleted 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Aathmika Holdings Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stand dismissed and the

ITA 836/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(x)Section 92C

them, in terms of Rule 11UA was determined at Rs.12.125 per share. Referring to the provisions of Section 56(2)(x), Explanation to Section 56(2)(vii), Rule 11U and Rule 11UA, the Ld. CIT(A) held that, only where the purchase price of shares is lower than ... instance during the assessment proceedings. Further, the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act is to be read with explanation to section 56(2)(vii) and Rule 11UA/11U clearly prescribe the manner and method to determine the FMV of unquoted equity shares. The said provisions do not prescribe

Pritiben Hiteshbhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(5), Surat

ITA 1247/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

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

land of Block No. 128 and addition of Rs. 1,17,947/- qua Block No. 127 thereby adding Rs. 8,12,020/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b). The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of Assessing Officer by simply holding that the Assessing Officer was bound to adopt