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The case addresses the taxability of cash withdrawn from sub-contractors' bank accounts by employees of a civil contractor engaged in infrastructure development.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

Shamoon Ahmed Mulla, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(4), Kalyan

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

ITA 6069/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Niyati Hakani, Ld. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 154Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

available on record and the relevant provisions of law, held that the property was transferred in the year 2014 and the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act are squarely applicable as per sections 45 and 2(47) of the Act. Conveyance of the property

Bhavnaben Sanjaykumar Mistry, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(5) Present ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1342/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

assessment de-novo, as the Ld. Pr. CIT was of the view that the Assessing Officer was failed to apply the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act which led to under assessment of income by Rs.21,42,857/-. Subsequently, the assessment was completed

Sachi Desai, Mumbai vs. ACIT Valsad Circle, Valsad

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by assessee are treated allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1041/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1041/Srt/2024 (Ay 2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Sachi Desai Assistant Commissioner Of Income- B/3501, Rustomjee Elanza Near Tax, Valsad Circle, Valsad, Aaykar बनाम Inorbit Mall Malad West, Vibhag, Shanti Nagar,Valsad-396 Vs Maharashtrat-400 064 001 [Pan : Aicpv 7841 A] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 10(2)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

income from other sources” by taking view that assessee does not fall in the category of “relative” define in clause-(ii) of Section 56(2)(vii). We find that Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the action of Assessing Officer in ex parte proceedings. Before us, Ld. AR of the assessee vehemently argued

Shri C. Thangaraj, Tirupur vs. PCIT-3, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 382/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.382/Chny/2020 िनधा'रण वष'/Assessment Year: 2014-15 C. Thangaraj, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 1, Vaikkal Thottam, Palladam Income Tax - 3, Road, Tirupur 641 604. Coimbatore. [Pan:Abtpt5217E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (*+थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri A. Arjun Raj, C.A. By Virtual *+थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri N. Balakrishnan, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.11.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri A. Arjun Raj, C.A. by virtualFor Respondent: Shri N. Balakrishnan, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 263

Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case the Income tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that invoking of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 is beyond the purview of the Assessing officer when the reason for limited scrutiny is 'purchase ... Section 263 of Act and whether he could have set aside the assessment on the ground that the assessing officer did not invoke Section 56(2)(vii)b(ii). The reading of the assessment order shows that the case was selected for limited scrutiny only on this aspect regarding

Arnab Kumar Goswami, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 62(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1710/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1710/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arnab Kumar Goswami……….. ……..…..…………………....Appellant Flat – 1C, Subham Apartment, Narayantala East, Baguiati, Kolkata – 700059. [Pan: Ahbpg0395G] Vs. Ito, Ward-62(1), Kolkata…. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Dilip Sahu, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. Drs, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 01, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.06.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Act By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,52,310/- During The Relevant Assessment Year. The Assessee Purchased An Immovable Property At Rajarhat At Sale Consideration Of Rs.25,00,000/-. However, The Stamp Duty Value Of The Property As Per Deed Of Conveyance Dated 05.09.2016 Was Rs.35,36,655/-. The Difference Of Rs.10,36,655/- Was Splitted Between The Assessee & His Spouse Amounting To Rs.5,18,327/-. Accordingly, The Assessing Officer Invoked Section 56(2)(Vii) Of The Act & Added Rs.5,18,327/- To The Total Income Of The Assessee As ‘Income From Other Sources’ While Framing Assessment. The

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151(1)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

difference of Rs.10,36,655/- was splitted between the assessee and his spouse amounting to Rs.5,18,327/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer invoked section 56(2)(vii) of the Act and added Rs.5,18,327/- to the total income of the assessee as ‘income from other sources’ while framing assessment

Hbs View Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2246/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Seth, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. D/R
Section 24Section 56(2)(vii)

assessee." 5. "On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates the taxation of the difference between the stamp duty value and the actual ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) failed to take into account the amendment to Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) w.e.f. 1st April 2021, which further clarified the scope of the provisions relating to the taxation of the difference between the stamp duty

Valukko Infrastrusture Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 11(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1034/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 1034/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Danish Sheikh V/S. Ito International Tax, 18, Old Planters Road, बिाम Ward 4(2)(1) Beverly, Usa-999999 Kautilya Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Fjxps3005Q Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Pradip Kapasi राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 43CSection 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(vil)

order u/s 148A (d) and notice u/s 148 were totally ignored (Pg 29 of paper book). GROUND NO. 2 & 5: INAPPLICABILITY OF SECTION 56(2)(vii)(b) LAND AND/OR BUILDING NOT ACQUIRED-PREMISES UNDER CONSTRUCTION P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2016-17 Danish Sheikh Deeming fiction of the provision ... unaccounted funds employed. GROUND NO 6: BENEFIT OF PROVISO TO S.56(2) (VII)(B) DENIED WRONGFULLY The Provisos 1st and 2nd of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) provides that no addition should be made on account of the differencing Agreement Value and the Stamp Duty Value in cases where there

Smt. Vimla Tripathi, Kanpur vs. ITO Ward-1(2)(1), Kanpur

ITA 310/LKW/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Vimla Tripathi V. The Income Tax Officer 119/12 B-1, Darshanpurwa Ward 1(2)(1) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aevpt9734K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 31 12 2024 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.08.2023, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 01.01.2014, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,93,140/-. As Per Information Available With The Income Tax Department, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Noticed That The Assessee, Along With Shri Siddha Kumar Tripathi, Had Purchased An Agricultural Land Admeasuring 0.6200 Hectare On 01.08.2012 For A Consideration Of Rs.12,00,000/-. The Ao Further Noticed That The Market Value Of

For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

treated as deemed income of the assessee from other sources and added the same to the total income of the assessee under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. ITA No.310/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 10 3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the AO, the Assessee preferred ... Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in applying the Provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 applicable to Assessment Year 2013-14 ignoring the fact that appellant had paid consideration of Rs.6.00 lacs

Ranvijay Haldhar Singh, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appealate Centre, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5430/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. Tejas Sodha, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)

that is, by a difference amount of Rs.5,13,500/- and hence his case squarely falls under the provisions of the above mentioned section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. 5 Mr. Ranvijay Haldhar Singh 7.5 The AO taxed the difference amount in the impugned assessment order ... reason to interfere with the same. The addition of Rs.5,13,500/- made by the AO by applying the deeming provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act as applicable for the AY under consideration is therefore confirmed. Hence, this set of ground/s of appeal taken

Abhinav Malik, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-31(1), Delhi

ITA 3525/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanabhinav Malik Income Tax Officer, D 114, Saket, Ward-31(1), Delhi-110 017 Vs. Delhi. Pan:Aiypm6590K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Divya Gujral, Ca Department By Shriyogesh Kumar Nayyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/12/2024

For Appellant: (i) That the transaction in hand i.e., the property transacted located at 18, Bl
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 56Section 56(2)(vii)

against the circle rate of this property mentioned in the sale deed at Rs.2,31,68,140/. The AO noted the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and stated that where the person Abhinav Malik vs. ITO purchase an immovable property for a sale consideration which ... received immovable property, the circle rate of which exceeds the sale consideration by a sum of Rs.1,11,68,140/-, therefore, provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) are clearly attracted. He required the assessee to explain through show cause notice, the assessee replied by letter dated 11/12/2018. The relevant

Pradip Manilal Kanakia, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Mum-C-(174)(1)), Mumbai

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

ITA 5499/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri.B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Kirti SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

project consideration of Rs.1,29,33,500/- was already started for payment from 2010. So, the assessee is falling under the Proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Here, the said section is reproduced as follows: - “56(2)(vii) where an individual or a Hindu undivided family ... impacted by the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, since it falls within the ambit of the proviso of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The Ld. AO erred by considering the stamp duty value of the agreement 5 ITA5761/Mum/2023 Amar Anil Turathia, Mumbai on31/03/2017.As

Satish Harnamdas Sethi, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3091/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pushkaraj Bhangepatil, Sr.AR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 56(2)(vii)

provisions of law and the same may be quashed and set aside. 3. Addition under head income from other invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act unjustified - 1,41,89,511/-. i. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action ... making addition of Rs.1,41,89,511/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act being difference between the actual purchase consideration and stamp authority valuation without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. The Appellant, therefore, prays that the addition of Rs.1,41,89,511/- is unjustified

Ashok Lakharam Vanjani, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 167/NAG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 56(2)(vii)

raised following grounds:– “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances, the learned AO erred in making an addition of Rs.5,86,500 under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) to total income of the assessee and the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the same. 2. Whether on the facts

Amar Anil Turakhia, Mumbai vs. Ward 24(1)(1), Piramal Chambers

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

ITA 5761/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Kirti SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

project consideration of Rs.1,29,33,500/- was already started for payment from 2010. So, the assessee is falling under the Proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Here, the said section is reproduced as follows: - “56(2)(vii) where an individual or a Hindu undivided family ... impacted by the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, since it falls within the ambit of the proviso of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The Ld. AO erred by considering the stamp duty value of the agreement 5 ITA5761/Mum/2023 Amar Anil Turathia, Mumbai on31/03/2017.As

Shambhavee Shashikant Kadam, Andheri (West) vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4748/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 234BSection 56(2)(vii)Section 69

with the issue raised is against the provisions of law. (iii) Addition under the head "Income from Other Sources" invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act is unjustified. (iv) Addition by treating the purchase of residential flat as unexplained investment under section ... issued various notices calling for the assessee to show cause why the difference cannot be treated as addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The AO also issued notice requiring the assessee to furnish the source of funds for purchasing the property. The assessee did not respond

Mallesh Manthri, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 362/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.362 /Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Mallesh Manthri Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-15(1) [Pan :Akdpm3296M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Mohd.Afzal, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri R.Kumaran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 17/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.02.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2014-15 On The Following Grounds : 1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Against The Law, Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Erred In Confirming An Addition Of Rs.95,54,666/-, Which Was Made By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 56(2)(Vii)(B) Of The It Act.

For Appellant: Mohd.Afzal, ARFor Respondent: : Shri R.Kumaran, DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

case. 2. The learned Commissioner erred in confirming an addition of Rs.95,54,666/-, which was made by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the IT Act. 2 3. The learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the assessee is only a Power of Attorney holder ... market value of the property as on the date of registration does not arise and therefore, the question of invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act does not arise. The Ld.CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee and also taking note of various

Subaitha Khani Sagul Hameethu, Manamelkudi vs. ITO, Ward-1, Pudukottai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2498/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2498/Chny/2024 (िनधा:रणवष: / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Mrs. Subaitha Khani Sagul Hameethu Ito बनाम/ L/H Of Late A.Sagul Hameethu Ward-1, #681, Kottaipattinam, Pudukottai. Vs. Manamelkudi-614 619. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bjqph-6104-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar (Fca)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Easwar (Jcit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar (FCA)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Easwar (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Prakash Nimmagadda, Hyderabad, Secunderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 974/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.974/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dy.Cit Vs. Shri Prakash Nimmagadda Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acbpn4246R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Meghnath Chowhan, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order, Dated 20/03/2017 Of The Learned Cit (A)-9, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2008-09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Meghnath Chowhan, CIT(DR)
Section 17(2)(c)Section 28

Such a mechanism does exist in Section 17(2)(c)(iii) w.e.f. 1-4-2001 for shares allotted under ESOP / sweat equity. Similarly, section 56(2)(vii) and (viia) provides to taxing the difference in consideration and the fair market value. Corresponding and related provisions are inserted in section

Abhaykumar Sevantilal Sanghavi, Deesa vs. The ACIT, Circle- Palanpur, Palanpur

Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1368/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1367/Ahd/2024 & 1368/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Abhaykumar Sevantilal Acit Circle, Palanpur बनाम/ Sanghavi [Old Jurisdiction-Circle, V/S. Sanghavi Brothers Palanpur. 1St Floor, Swastik Bldg New Jurisdiction-Circle, Nr. City Police Station Gandhinagar.] Nr. Dena Bank, Main Bazar Deesa – 385 535 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afbps 1660 L (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Pertain To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2016-17 & 2017-18. Since The Issues Involved Are Common & Connected, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. The Appeals Arise Out Of The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23(4)Section 250Section 68

Julieben Sanghavi is the wife of the assessee’s brother, thus establishing that the donor is a relative within the meaning of Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. The relationship, which was not disclosed during the assessment, was satisfactorily explained during the appellate proceedings. The additional documents submitted demonstrate

Abhaykumar Sevantilal Sanghavi, Deesa vs. Old Jurisdiction- Circle, Palanpur New Jurisdiction-Circle, Gandhinagar

Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1367/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1367/Ahd/2024 & 1368/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Abhaykumar Sevantilal Acit Circle, Palanpur बनाम/ Sanghavi [Old Jurisdiction-Circle, V/S. Sanghavi Brothers Palanpur. 1St Floor, Swastik Bldg New Jurisdiction-Circle, Nr. City Police Station Gandhinagar.] Nr. Dena Bank, Main Bazar Deesa – 385 535 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afbps 1660 L (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Pertain To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2016-17 & 2017-18. Since The Issues Involved Are Common & Connected, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. The Appeals Arise Out Of The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23(4)Section 250Section 68

Julieben Sanghavi is the wife of the assessee’s brother, thus establishing that the donor is a relative within the meaning of Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. The relationship, which was not disclosed during the assessment, was satisfactorily explained during the appellate proceedings. The additional documents submitted demonstrate