← All Phrases

“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
69
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
39
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
24
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
24
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The case addresses the taxability of cash withdrawn from sub-contractors' bank accounts by employees of a civil contractor engaged in infrastructure development.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
23
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
21
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
21
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)

Dilip Kumar Agrawal, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 34(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1547/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1547/Kol/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Dilip Kumar Agrawal, Ito, Ward-34(3), 1D, 14Th Floor, 78, V/S Kolkata Bentinck Street, Dalhousie, Kolkata-700 001 West Bengal Pan : Acwpa9714D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Abheshek Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumita Das, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

appeal on or before hearing of the appeal.” 3. The grievance of the assessee is two fold, firstly, that provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act are not applicable on the transaction in question during the year and secondly, the addition of Rs.25,73,800/- is uncalled ... other details of payments made to Mrs. Bimla Devi Bothra and Promoter during F.Y. 2012-13 onwards. He further submitted that section 56(2)(vii) is not applicable in the facts of the instant case as the said section has been made applicable from 01.04.2014 but the Agreement for purchase

Ajinath Santram Kharat, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Nashik

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for

ITA 1771/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 4Section 5Section 56(2)(vii)

stamp valuation authorities, not appreciating that the land purchased was agricultural land and not being a capital asset, the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) were not attracted and that all evidences relied upon were before the ld AO and no additional evidences were filed before

Lila Tejpal Jain, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 5927/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 250Section 50CSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

case involved is about differences in market rate/value and because of differences in value comes under section 50C for seller and section 56(2) (vii) (b) for purchaser. 2. Assessee is holding a property in the area having normal property value comes to amount of Rs 57, 88,862. Explanation ... explained above and in actual it is used as office and not shop. So there should be no reason for invocation of section 56(2)(vii) (b) of Income Tax Act. 2) Property for which notice was served is a joint property. Notice was served to both the person

Dreams Dwellers LLP(As Legal Representative of Megacorp Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT -24(1) (Earlier ACIT Cir 10(1)(1), Mumbai)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4937/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dreams Dwellers Llp (As Legal Acit-24(1) (Earlier Acit Cir 10(1)(1) Representative Of Megacorp Mumbai), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai) Room No. 604, 6Th Floor, Piramal 702, Natraj, Mv Road, Junction W E Chambers Parel, Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400069. Pan No. Aafcm 0366 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SUNIL

Rahul Bajpai, Idgah Chowk vs. DCIT Circle 1(1), Shri Ram Plaza

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 345/RPR/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Jan 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.345/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rahul Bajpai Idgah Chowk, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh-495 001 Pan: Aexpb4410L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CA
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54BSection 54DSection 56(2)(vii)

duty value determined by the stamp duty authority and purchase cost of the land disclosed in return of income by the appellant under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 7 Rahul Bajpai Vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), Bilaspur 5.3 The appellant's arguments on this issue revolve around ... points listed below. (a) The AO, while making addition of Rs.50,60,900/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, considered the purchase of the land in question in the financial year 2014-15, even though it was purchased in the financial year 2011-12. (b). The land

Madhubala Indrakumar Parmar, Pali vs. ITO, Ward 4, Panvel

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2532/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2532/Pun/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Madhubala Indrakumar Parmar, V The Income Tax Officer, Bazar Peth, At Post Pali,Taluka S Ward-4, Panvel. Sudhagad, District Raigad, Maharashtra – 410205. Pan: Aatpp5508P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Subhodh Ratnaparkhi – Ar Revenue By Miss Indira R Adakil – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2014-15 Dated 10.10.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order . The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Hon. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Addition To The Extent Of Rs.8,50,834/- U/S 56(2)(Vii)(B)(Ii) Of The I.T.Act 1961, On Account Of Difference Between The Actual Purchase Consideration Of Agricultural Land At Pali, Taluka Sudhagad, Dist. Raigad & The Value As Per

Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

No.2532/PUN/2024[A] stamp valuation authorities, not appreciating that the land purchased was agricultural land and not being a capital asset, the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) were not attracted and that all evidences relied upon were before the ld AO and no additional evidences were filed before ... relief granted. The main ground in appeal before the Hon. CIT(A) was that addition by relying upon the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the I. T. ITA No.2532/PUN/2024[A] Act 1961 was not attracted to the transaction of purchase of agricultural land, as the same

Ajay Thakur, Dehradun vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(1)1, Dehradun

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 60/DDN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Ajay Thakur, S/O- Sh. Surendra Singh, 31-Purbiya Ward-1(1)(1)1, Lines, Hospital Road, Dehradun Vikas Nagar, Dehradun Pan: Afkpt5059D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rajiv Sahni, Ca Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2025 Order

Section 115BSection 147Section 2(14)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

assessee’s first substantive ground is that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in making the section 56(2)(vii)(b) addition of Rs.19,46,500/- which represents difference between the actual purchase price of Rs.21 lakhs and the circle rate of the relevant ... been rightly invoked in the assessee’s hands going by the foregoing difference in the circle rate and the actual purchase price under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. We invited both the parties’ attention to section 56(2)(vii)(b) Explanation (d), defining the property as “means

M.P. Veerachandra Chettiyar, Kadavanthara vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Range-1, Non Corporate Ward-1(50, Kochi

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

ITA 557/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Respondent: Smt. Divya Ravindran
Section 56(2)(vii)

relevant documents before the Assessing Officer. G. Without prejudice to the above contention, it is respectfully submitted that the addition made under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act is arbitrary and unjustified. H. The appellant had raised a ground before the CIT(A) that section 56(2 ... capital asset of the recipient. If the property is stock in trade, raw material and consumable stores of any business of such recipient section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act is not applicable. I. The Ld CIT(A) is not justified in law in including the property, being

Mr. Ramlal G. Suthar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, (2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 3224/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarmr. Ramlal G Suthar Vs Ito, Ward 10(2)(3), Mumbai Room No.212, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar A/704, Riddhi Siddhi Complex Near S.T. Stand, M.G. Road, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 Sukarwadi, Borivali (E), 020 Mumbai-400 066 Pan :Afvpm2258J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh JainFor Respondent: Shri Balasaheb Nagve (SR DR)
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 50C(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

Stamp Authority and has ignored the provisions of income tax 3 Ramlal G Suthar and judicial decisions on section 50C(1) and section 56(2)(vii) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... case are that the assessment was framed U/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act with an addition of Rs.20,42,000 under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the addition both on legal ground

Lalit Kumar Poddar, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 33, Kolkata

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

ITA 2170/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

been taken as Rs. 19,62,885/-. It has further been submitted that aforesaid property was purchased during FY 2011-12 and Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the act was inserted in the Income Tax Act vide Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f 01.04.2014. The ld. Counsel submits that ... order on 17.05.2023 stating that the application is subject matter of appeal not rectification. 7. The main contention of the assessee is that Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act was inserted in the Act vide Finance Act, 2013, w.e.f 01.04.2014, so the order under consideration section

Kunapareddy Sujatha, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 444/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Balakrishnan. Sassessment Year: 2016-17 Kunapareddy Sujatha, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3(1), Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan : Akfpk1757R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Ar. Revenue By: Ms. K. Sandhya Rani, Sr.Dr. Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Ms. K. Sandhya Rani, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69C

Rs.3,10,000, whereas its stamp duty value was Rs. 60,02,000/-, resulting in an addition of Rs.56,92,000/- under Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii). Additionally, an expenditure of Rs.4,50,350/- on stamp duty and registration charges was treated as unexplained under Section 69C. Various penalty

Ramasamy Solaisamy, Virudhunagar vs. ITO, Ncc-2, Madurai

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

ITA 2397/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2397 /Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 Ramasamy Solaisamy Income Tax Officer, No.9E, Chairman, Non-Corp., Npsn Arumugam Road, Circle-2, Sivakasi Viruthunagar, Madurai Tamil Nadu-626 123. [Pan: Acvps7427C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : None प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Sheila Parthasarthy, Addl.Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms.Sheila Parthasarthy, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Rs.38,68,000/- as against the fair market value fixed by the stamp authority of Rs.1,26,52,500/-. Invoking the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) the Ld.AO made the addition of Rs.87,84,500/-. Since, the assessee did not accept the fair market value fixed

Babasaheb Bandgar, Solapur vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Solapur

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

ITA 2231/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2231/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep P. Sathe
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69C

asked the assessee to explain as to why the difference amount should not be taxed as income invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. In response, the assessee filed 7/12 extracts establishing the ownership of many persons and the land is under litigation. Not convinced

Syed Hifajat Ali, Indore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bilaspur

Appeal are disposed of in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 527/RPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 527/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

purchased by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that in the view of clear mandate of 1st proviso to section 56(2)(vii) r.w.s 50C, valuation by DVO cannot exceed the stamp duty valuation of property and accordingly when the value of property recorded ... about any corroborative support to substantiate that the report of DVO was arbitrary or unreasonable. Regarding, assessee’s reference to 1st proviso of section 56(2)(vii) r.w.s. 50C and its applicability in the present case, nothing has been submitted before us to support such claim, in terms of corroborative

Rahul Bajpai, Idgah Chowk vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Shri Ram Plaza

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 348/RPR/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jan 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.348/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rahul Bajpai Idgah Chowk, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh-495 001 Pan: Aexpb4410L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CA
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

provided - ITAT, Raipur in the case of Saraswati Garewal, ITA No. 166/RPR/2022 dated 25/10/2023. 5. That the CIT(A) erred in invoking section 56(2)(vii)(b) not considering that the land purchased was stock in trade and shown in the balance sheet as current assets at the time ... return of income filed in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act) i.e. as stock-in-trade, therefore, the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act were not applicable. Elaborating further, it was stated by him that the consideration that would be received

Holiday Triangle Travel Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 67/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Shivpuri, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

issued the shares to M/s Jasmine Pvt. Ltd., during the year under consideration. Further, the fair market value as per the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) has to be determined in accordance with the method prescribed under Rule 11UA of the IT Rules and as per sub-Rule ... Therefore, it is the option of the assessee to adopt any of the prescribed method under Rule 11UA(2) of the IT Rules Section 56(2)(vii)(b) read with Explanation has specifically provided that the fair market value of the unquoted shares shall be determined as per the prescribed

Imran Mohammed Anwar Ahmed Shaikh, Malad West Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Bandra East, Mumbai

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

ITA 5491/MUM/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriimran Mohammed Anwar V/S. Ito Ahmed Shaikh बनाम Kautilya Bhawan, Avenue- Rahil Kutir, Bunglow No.1, 3, Near Videsh Bhavan, G Juliuswadi, Gate No. 6, Block Bkc, Bandra Kurla Malwai, Malad West, Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400095 Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Bddps8555F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Agreement Value Rs. 30,00,00/- Difference Rs. 67,93,500/- Difference Rs. 97,83,000/- 4. Accordingly, Ld. AO invoked provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and made an addition of Rs. 1,65,76,500/- on account of above difference. Since

Omprakash, Dholpur vs. ITO Ward 4 Bharatpur, Bharatpur

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

ITA 1255/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jan 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rahual Pandya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary (JCIT-DR)
Section 147Section 148oSection 2(14)Section 271(1)(C)Section 45

sold an agricultural land for a certain amount and sub-registrar valued said land at a higher amount Assessing Officer invoked provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) and added difference between consideration as per stamp value authority and sale consideration disclosed by assessee to income of assessee ... found that asset in question was an agricultural land not falling in category of capital asset defined in clause (d) to Explanation to section 56(2)(vii)(b) Whether therefore, section 56(2)(vii)(b) could not have been invoked and therefore, addition made under section 56(2)(vii

Prabir Roy Chowdhury, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 10(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 259/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 41(1)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “ए’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार

Ravi Ramakrishnan, Singapore vs. International Tax Ward 4(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly the alternate plea of the assessee in Ground No.4 is allowed

ITA 5990/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

notice to the assessee as to why the difference of Rs. 45,62,270/- cannot be added as income from other sources under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The assessee submitted that the agreement for purchase of the flat was entered into five years back and that ... registration. The AO did not accept the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to make the addition of Rs. 45,62,270/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 3. The assessee raised objections before the DRP against the draft assessment order passed by the AO. Before