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The case addresses the taxability of cash withdrawn from sub-contractors' bank accounts by employees of a civil contractor engaged in infrastructure development.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

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

duty 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)

accordingly 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

Hiren Rameshbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 681/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding the impugned addition on account of section 56(2)(vii) (b) amounting Rs. 90,00,000/-, I.T.A No. 681/Ahd/2024 Hiren Rameshbhai Patel, A.Y. 2016-17 received towards relinquishment in title over land offered

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

recorded in the 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 ... stated sale consideration in the registered deed, the said actual sale consideration is to be accepted as the fair value and provisions to section 56(2)(vii) cannot be invoked. Accordingly, in the given set of facts and following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench as stated above

ACIT Circle-28(1), New Delhi vs. Ajay Singh, New Delhi

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

ITA 912/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.912/िद"ी/2020(िन.व. 2015-16) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 28(1), R. No. 1001, 10Th Floor, E-2, Block, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Civic Centre, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant J L Nehru Marg, New Delhi 110002 बनाम Vs. Ajay Singh, B-1, Kalindi Colony, New Delhi 110065 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Abjps-9222-J Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Javed Akhtar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 30.05.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 06.12.2019, For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Revenue In Appeal Has Assailed The Order Of Cit(A) By Raising Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT(DR)

Section 147Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viii)

addition of Rs. 7,98,97,75,682/- made by the AO to the income of the assessee on account of provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the IT Act ignoring the fact that the assessee has acquired shares for a consideration which is less than aggregate fair ... addition of Rs. 7,98,97,75,682/- made by the AO to the income of the assessee on account of provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the IT Act ignoring the fact that shares of Spice jet purchased by assessee are quoted and there is no other

Baljit Kaur, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Karnal

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4073/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Baljit Kaur, Pcit, 726, Sector-13, U.E., Karnal, Vs. Office Of The Principal Haryana. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak, Haryana. Pan No.Aippk7073E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Baljit Kaur, Dcit, H.No.142-B, Model Town Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Sector-12, Extension, Ludhiana, Karnal, Haryana. Punjab. Pan No.Aippk7073E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

assessee filed writ petition before the Hon'ble P & H High Court. The question for consideration was "whether after the insertion of section 56(2)(vii) and 57 (iv) of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2010, can the assessee claim that interest received under section 28 of the Land Acquisition

Baljit Kaur, Karnal vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1208/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2018-19

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Niraj Rathi & Sons HUF, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5941/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 147Section 251(1)(a)Section 56(2)(vii)

made an unexplained investment addition of Rs. 14,73,340/- in the assessee's hands which stands converted to that under section 56(2)(vii); and, therefore, it is hereby concluded in the light of CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC); CIT Vs. Sardari

Rupesh Laldas Dhakate, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward -1, Bhandara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Chandraprakash BhutadaFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha

Section 147Section 156Section 48Section 50CSection 69

clear intention to transfer ownership, the date of the agreement could have relevance in determining the transfer for taxation purposes. C) As per Section 56(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, gifts received by an individual are generally taxable under the head "Income from Other Sources," if the total ... financial year exceeds ₹50,000. However, there is a specific exemption for gifts received from relatives. Gift from Relatives - As per Section 56(2)(vii), gifts received from relatives are exempt from tax, irrespective of the value of the gift. This exemption applies even if the value of the gift

Rakeshkumar Shitalprasad Shukla, Goregaon East vs. Ward 41(4)(3), Mumbai, Bandra Kurla Complex

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 1855/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)(b)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

clause was made by the Finance Act, 2017 and was not applicable when the flat was bought. So far as the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) (b) of the Act are concerned, the clause b was inserted by finance act 2015 with effect from 01.04.2014, which provides that ... intent shows an over thinking and hyper technical interpretation at the end of the A.O.assessee's case clearly falls in the proviso to Section 56(2) (vii)(b). For sake of clarity we are reproducing herein below the relevant portion of proviso "Provided that where the date of the agreement

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Puducherry vs. Velayudame Ponnambalame Ramalingame, Puducherry

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the C

ITA 2515/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2515/Chny/2024 & C.O No.77/Chny/2024 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Asst. Commissioner Of Velayudame Ponnambalame Income Tax, Vs. Ramalingame, Circle-1, 72-74, Perumal Koil Street, Puducherry. Puducherry – 605001. [Pan: Aaipr 7831G]

For Respondent: Ms. Sheila Parthasarthy, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

against stamp valuation of property of Rs. 12,60,00,000/-. We agree with the submission of the Ld. A.R that section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act has no application as the difference in consideration paid and stamp valuation of property is less than

Mithum Kerur, Vijayapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bijapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 151/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT (DR)

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

stood at Rs.37,28,000/- only. Consequently, the Assessing Officer . Page 4 of 6 invoked the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act and made an addition of Rs. 23,33,000/-, being the differential amount, treating it as income from other sources in the hands ... gains of business or profession” in the assessment year 2018-19, and this classification was accepted by the department in that year. 7.2 Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act provides that where any immovable property is acquired by an individual or Hindu undivided family for a consideration

Sharda Steel Traders, Raipur vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur

ITA 116/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 & 116/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11,2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 )

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "ायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी पाथ" सारथी चौधर", "ाियक सद

Ushasree Bandaru, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 529/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.528/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Satyasree Kamineni Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax [Pan :Adopk6338C] Circle-5(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.529/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ushasree Bandaru Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax [Pan :Acepb2973M] Circle-5(1) Hyderabad निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B.Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/05/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/ 21/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: These Two Appeals Filed By The Two Related Assessees Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Ld.Pcit”) Both Dated 26.03.2024 Passed U/S 263 The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. Identical Grounds Have Been Raised By Both The Assessees. The Grounds Raised In The Ita No.528/Hyd/2024 Are Reproduced As Under :

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

invoking the provisions of Section 263. 2. Without prejudice to above ground the appellant contends as under : 3. The Hon.PCIT erred in invoking section 56(2)(vii) of the Act in relation to equity shares (Rights Issue) acquired by way of subscription to fresh issue. 4. The appellant contends that ... property as such exists in relation to equity shares prior to the allotment and hence its receipt as referred to in section 56(2)(vii) would not arise at the time of allotment. 5. The Hon.PCIT failed to appreciate the fact that all the shareholders of company before and after