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The case addresses the taxability of cash withdrawn from sub-contractors' bank accounts by employees of a civil contractor engaged in infrastructure development.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

Satyasree Kamineni, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 528/HYD/2024[A.Y.2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2025

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

Yadagiri Tattari, Hyderabad vs. JCIT., Range-15, Hyderabad

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

ITA 474/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Shri D. Praveen, Sr. AR

Section 269Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

fraudulent. It is pertinent to mention here that transfer of immovable property without consideration or for inadequate consideration also attracts the provision of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act.” 5. CA A. Srinivas, Learned Counsel for the Assessee referring to additional grounds of appeal filed by the assessee submitted

Smt. Kajari Banerjee, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward-29(1), Kolktat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 130/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 50(2)(X)Section 56Section 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

Naina Manish Desai, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 262/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarnaina Manish Desai, Flat No. 6, V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3Rd Floor, Triveni Building, बनाम – 19(2)(4), Piramal Walkeshwar Triveni Chs E Chambers, 5Th Floor, Block, 66 Walkeshwar Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai – Mumbai – 400 006, Maharashtra 400012, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabps9026P Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, (Sr. DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 28,14,500/- to the total income under section 56(2)(vii) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) but relied on provisions of section

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

Fakhruddin T.Malik, Mumbai vs. ITO WD.21(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 6555/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Najamuddin MalikFor Respondent: Smt. Smitha V. Nair, CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

assessee was asked to show cause as to why the said difference should not be treated as income of the assessee under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. In his response, the assessee submitted that he had agreed and negotiated the purchase consideration with the builder ... between the stamp duty value as on the date of agreement and the value of two residential flats purchased by the assessee under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. 5. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld

Kukdi Devi, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Chennai

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

ITA 2926/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2926/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kukdi Devi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Door No. 35, West Krishnappa Non Corporate Ward 5(1), Gramani Garden, 3Rd Street, Chennai. Tondiarpet, Chennai 600 081. [Pan:Cchpk5677C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Akshit Jain, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Deeptha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.08.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 384 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit

For Appellant: Shri Akshit Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Deeptha, Addl. CIT

Section 69

objection why 50% being the difference in the value of the property at ₹.9,17,256/- should not be brought to tax under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee objected the same and requested to refer the matter ... property to the tune of ₹.9,17,256/- being assessee’s 50% share to the total income of the assessee under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before

Karan Devinder Julka, Mumbai vs. ITO 41(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 509/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Bleshri Girish Agrawal, Hon'Ble

Section 10Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

date of payment of first instalment of ₹ 3,60,720/- against the orally agreed consideration of ₹ 39,64,200/-. The first proviso to section 56 (2)(vii) refers to the 'date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable property'. The proviso doesn't stipulate that ... grounds, the valuation of the residential flat should be referred to the valuation officer as contemplated in the provision of below to section 56 (2)(vii). 2. Brief fact facts of the case are that assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year (AY) 2017-18 declaring total

Md. Shanawaj Rizwi, Purnea vs. ACIT, CC-2, Patna

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

ITA 560/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna05 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Where Also He Could Not Succeed & The Addition Was Confirmed.

Section 133Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

appeal without merit and affirming the order of the AO (DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle-2, Patna, wherein the Id.AO has invoked deeming provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of I.T. Act 1961 and has added back Rs. 15.00 Lacs being the difference between the circle value of Land ... Lacs of immovable assets 3acre land at Marocha Ujiyarpur, Purnea, is treated income from other sources in view of provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of I.T. Act 1961, therefore the addition is upheld and accordingly the grounds of appeal dismissed. 04. For that Ld CIT (A) upholds

Yogesh Mafatlal Bhansali, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 740/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Yogesh Mafatlal Bhansali Ito, Ward-5(3)(1) 101, Shakuntal Appt Vs Ahmedabad. Opp: Cn Vidhyalaya Ambawadi Ahmedabad 380015. Pan : Aarpb 6394 H (Appellant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate Revenue By : Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 02/05/2025

For Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 64

Both the lower authorities failed to appreciate that there is no "receipt" of immovable property by the appellant as contemplated u/s. Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 4. Both the lower authorities failed to appreciate that no addition u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act in respect ... computed by DVO and sale consideration of Rs. 1,21,00,000/- as per first proviso to Section 56(2)(vii) r.w.s. 50C r.w.s. 155(15) of the Act. 7. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossly ignoring

Rajkanwar Kataria, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-10(5), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 441/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.441/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Mrs.Rajkanwar Kataria, Income Tax Officer, Tower No.4, Flat No.G-03, No.4,5,6 Non-Corporate Ward-10(5), North Town Estate, Binny Mills, Chennai. Stephenson Road, Jamlaia, Chennai-600 012. [Pan: Aalpk5671N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri M.Murugaboopathy, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Gowthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri M.Murugaboopathy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gowthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 234ASection 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

Ld.AO in making an addition on account of modified determination of capital gains, adoption of stamp duty valuation invoking provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c ), addition u/s 50C and charging of income u/s 234A,B & C etc. At the outset, Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT

ACIT, Central Circle-1, Thane vs. Nakul Markhedkar, Thane

ITA 786/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan - Sr. DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 56(2)(vii)

common issue contended by the revenue in both the appeals pertain to the CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the AO under section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by applying Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules). 2 ... business as EPC contractor, which makes it very clear that acquisition of holding companies was arranged only to circumvent the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) (c) of the I.T.Act, 1961. 5. The assessee has failed to explain satisfactorily the source of capital Rs. 14.03 crores raised by M/s. Ratangiri

ACIT, Central Circle-1, Thane vs. Nakul Markhedkar, Thane

ITA 785/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan - Sr. DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 56(2)(vii)

Devalbai Karsan Parmar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 20(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1786/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2017-18 Devalbai Karsan Parmar, Income Tax Officer, Ward-20(1)(1), H9, B-401, Herumb Chs, 3Rd Floor, New Mhada Colony, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Kamgar Nagar, Lalbaugh, Near Tilak Nagar Mumbai-400012. Railway Station, Chembur, Mumbai-400024. Pan: Aispp0021A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shashank Mehta For Revenue : Shri Asif Karmali, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

Appellant in limine without appreciating the fact that the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of Rs. 16,46,373/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) in utter defiance to the first proviso thereof. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Learned Commissioner ... Appellant inlimine without appreciating the fact that the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of Rs. 16,46,373/- under section 56(2) (vii) (b); disregarding the factual and legal matrix of the case. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case

Ranjan Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(2), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 239/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf

Ranjan Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 6(2), Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 238/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf

Sureshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT Circle 6(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1328/AHD/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1327 & 1328/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18) बनाम/ Sureshbhai Ranchhodbhai Acit Circle 5(2)(1), Ahmedabad Patel Vs. 1, Shayona Darshan & Bunglow, Opp. Gujarat High Court, Ghatlodia, Acit, Circle 6(1), Gujarat – 380061 Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Actpp1167A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R B Tank, A.R. Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr. Dr Revenue By : 26/03/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri R B Tank, A.RFor Respondent: 26/03/2025

Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 57

Rs.2,25,20,408/-. The difference of Rs.10,12,808/- between the two values was considered as income of the assessee under Section 56(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and accordingly addition of Rs.5,06,404/- was made in the hands

Sureshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT Circle 5(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1327/AHD/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Apr 2025AY 2016-2017

For Appellant: Shri R B Tank, A.RFor Respondent: 26/03/2025

Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 57

Dy. Commmissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Prasad Shetty, Sion, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6256/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(a)Section 151ASection 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Vinaya Abhijit Gajendragadkar, Pune vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 586/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.586 & 585/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sharad VazeFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava

Section 144Section 250

cash was received on 01.02.2007 and through banking channel vide Cheque bearing No.032014 on 25.05.2007. Therefore, in view of 2nd proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act for the purposes of stamp duty valuation, Fair Market Value as on 25.05.2007 should have been considered ... ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication to be carried out in light of our observations (supra) about application of both the provisos to section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and calculation of Fair Market Value of the immovable property in question as on 25.05.2007 for calculating the Long Term