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The case addresses the taxability of cash withdrawn from sub-contractors' bank accounts by employees of a civil contractor engaged in infrastructure development.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

Mili Marketing Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-16(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 2319/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year : 2016-17] M/S. Mili Marketing Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, H-108, Connaught Circus, Ward-16(4), New Delhi-110001. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcm7097H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ved Jain, Adv & Shri Aman Garg, Ca Respondent By Ms. Smita Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2024

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

share in response thereto. The assessee has duly filed the computation and justified the value in terms of Rules 11UA read with section 56(2)(vii) (b) (PB Pg.51-54) and no adverse view has been taken by the assessing officer. Thus, the share capital and the share premium received

Vaishnav Yashwant Ashtankar, Nagpur vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Nagpur 2, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 240/NAG/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 44ASection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

therefore, as this amount exceeded ` 50,000, the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act were attracted. The share of the assessee, as per purchase deed was 1/3rd which works out to ` 5,64,666 (1/3rd of ` 16,94,000), therefore, the Assessing Officer held that this ... Rs.1,19,79,000 1,02,85,000). Therefore, as this amount exceeded fifty thousand rupees, provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act were attracted. The share of the assessee, as per purchase deed was 1/3rd which works out to Rs.5,64,666/- (1/3rd

Yashwant Pandurangji Ashtankar, Nagpur vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Nagpur - 2, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 236/NAG/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

stated that in view of this he had objection in treating Rs.5,64.666/-, as income from other sources as per the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the IT Act. The assessee also relied on the following judgements stating that in these it was held that the difference ... strongly supported the order passed by the learned PCIT and submitted that the Assessing Officer’s order is contrary to the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. He strongly supported the order passed by the learned PCIT. 9. We have heard the rival arguments, perused

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Meerut vs. Smt. Kamlesh, Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2152/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Vs. Smt. Kamlesh, Central Circle, 1402/1403, Vidhyanchal Meerut Tower, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad Pan :Akypk3905E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rohit Agarwal, Ca Department By Ms. Jaya Choudhary, Cit(Dr)

Section 153ASection 56(2)(vi)Section 68

twin remand reports (supra) that the assessee’s land purchased herein forms a “capital” asset so as to satisfy the rigor of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(i) of the Act wherein the legislature has itself incorporated the clinching statutory expression “property; means the following capital asset of the assessee

Tejas C. Joshi, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-5(3)(Original Jurisdiction) the Dy. CIT, Cent. Circle 2(2) (Present Jurisdiction), Ahmedabad

ITA 912/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 912/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) बनाम/ Tejas C Joshi Dy. Commissioner Of 9A, Santosa Park Society, Income Tax Vs. Nr. Aadiraj Bunglow, Central Circle 5(3), Iskon Ambli Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad (Original Ahmedabad - 380058 Jurisdiction) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 2(2), Ahmedabad (Present Jurisdiction) "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanpj4735G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Hardik Vora, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Prasad Rao Waghe Annasaheb, Sr. Dr 22/11/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prasad Rao Waghe Annasaheb

Section 56(2)(vii)

only. The AO, therefore, added the difference amount of Rs.2,51,39,530/- as income of the assessee under the provision of Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). ITA No. 912/Ahd/2023 [DCIT vs. Tejas C. Joshi

Dharmesh Ramesh Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. The Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit Faceless Assessments, Delhi

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

ITA 5472/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2017-18 Dharmesh Ramesh Jhaveri, The Asst./Dy. Commissioner Of 1 & 2,Bhagyodaya Building, Income Tax, Sarojini Road, Vs. Circle-2(2)(1), Vile Parle (West), Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Mumbai. Aayakar Bhavan, Pan : Aacpj6530G M.K. Road, Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Lalchand Choudhary, For Revenue : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-12-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04-12-2024 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran, A.M : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dt. 28-08- 2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟] & It Relates To Ay. 2017-18. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Decision Of The Ld.Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50.06 Lakhs Made By The Ao U/S. 56(2)(Vii)(B)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟).

For Appellant: Shri Lalchand ChoudharyFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.DR

Section 56(2)(vii)

assessee had paid an advance of Rs. 1 lakh on 16-05-2010. Accordingly, by placing reliance on the proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act, the assessee contended that the stamp duty value as on the date of allotment should be considered for the purpose ... section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. The assessee submitted that the stamp duty value as on the date of allotment was Rs.40,34,880/- and it was less than the purchase consideration. Accordingly, the assessee contended that no addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) is called

Spl Infrastructure Pvt. Lt, Alwarpet, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai

ITA 325/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.325/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Spl Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 15, Kasturi Rangan Road, Corporate Circle – 6(1), Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [Pan: Aaics0881N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.03.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Raised 11 Grounds Of Appeal. The Ld. Ar Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate, Drew Our Attention To Ground No. 11 & Submits That This Matter Requires To Be Remanded To The File Of The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

Rule 11UA(2)(b). During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted various case laws which is related to section 56(2)(vii)(c) pertaining to Individual and HUF but it is not related to any company, which has independent legal entity and having separate 6 I.T.A. No.325/Chny/23 provision

Deepchand Khetmal Jain, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

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

ITA 4223/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: 17.10.2024

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 270ASection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

appeal: “1. On the facts and Circumstances of the case the NFAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs.79,00,000/- under section 56(2) (vii) of the Income Tax Act 1961 and thereby erred in confirming and treating the difference between purchase value of immovable property and stamp duty

Gobind, New Delhi vs. CIT(A), Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 400/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2016-17

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

parties at length. Case file perused. 2. Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive ground challenging both the lower authorities’ action making section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) addition of Rs. 27,98,544/- representing the difference between actual purchase price of Rs. 36,65,640/- as against stamp price ... relevant capital asset was in fact “lease rights” only than an “immovable property” with title. Faced with this clinching aspect, I hereby quote Section 56(2)(vii) Explanation (d)(i) that the legislature has envisaged “property” as “immovable property, being land or building or both”. It is made clear that

Bimla, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-38(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 7973/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekbimla, Vs. Ito, Ward 38 (5), H.No.143, Village Hamidpur, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 036. (Pan : Bpdpb9344B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2024 Date Of Order : 26.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals-13, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Cit (A)’) Dated 23.07.2019 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,23,030/- On 14.08.2014. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Notices

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 143Section 143(2)Section 69

purchase amount at Rs.1,63,50,103/- on the basis of circle rate on which stamp duty was paid in the light of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act and directed the difference of amount between circle rate and actual amount paid by the assessee ... brought to our notice para 5.6 of the appellate order and submitted that ld. CIT (A) has invoked the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act to confirm the addition of Rs.93,50,103/- being the difference of circle rate and actual purchase price. In this

Sills Karingattil Jose, Nedumkandom vs. ITO Ward 2, Thodupuzha

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 132/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhsils Karingattil Jose Income Tax Officer Np 3/406, Karingattil Ward - 2, House, Munnar Road Thodupuzha Vs. Nedumkandom P.O. [Pan: Afopj8789C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R

Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(V)Section 250Section 50CSection 53ASection 56(2)(vii)

principles of law.” 4. Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised herein challenging correctness of both the lower authorities action making Section 56(2)(vii)(c)(ii) addition of Rs.11,67,000/-, in the course of assessment as upheld in the lower appellate discussion, we note that ... transfer in light of (2024) 460 ITR 628 (Guj.) PCIT Vs. Jigar Jashwantlal Shah rejecting the Revenue’s identical stand as under: 6. Section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act, reads as under: "56. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section

Vijay Vinod Duragkar, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 339/NAG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

case and in law, the AO grossly erred in making and the CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) treating the stamp duty valuation of the property as the fair market value determining the fair market value of the property and without referring ... case and in law, the AO grossly erred in making and the CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) treating the stamp duty valuation of the property as the fair market value ignoring the fact that the property suffered from various disadvantages

Amit Shrivastav, Mumbai vs. The Assessment Unit - National Faceless Assessment Center (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 65/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), The Appellant Pleaded That The Differential Was Less Than 10% But More Than 5% (Being The Tolerance Available For The Assessment Year In Question) & Hence For The Year Under Consideration The Safe Harbour Limit Of 5% Only Would Apply & Since The Impugned Amount Was More Than That Limit, He Sustained The Addition.

Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

operative part of the decision is extracted as under: “17. It is further relevant to observe, section 50C or for that matter section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) are identical provisions. Only difference being, 50C is applicable to the seller of an immovable property, whereas, the later provision is applicable ... value determined by the stamp duty authority and the declared sale consideration is less than 10%, no addition can be made under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. 18. Having held so, the second aspect of the issue which requires consideration is whether the exception to section

Late Muthumalainadar Krishnavel, Represented by 6 Legal Heirs, Tuticorin vs. PCIT-1, Madurai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1018/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1018/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. K.Indira, Pcit-1 Shri K.Muthuvel, Madurai. Shri Selvakumaran, Shri M.K.Balaji बनाम/ Shri K.Ragupathy, Shri K.Sudhakar Vs. All L/Hs Of Late Shri Muthumalainadar Krishnavel, 15, Melanavaladivillai, Arumuganeri, Tuticorin-628 202. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bctpk-6952-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S.Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-08-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

PCIT erred in directing the Assessing Officer to add a sum of Rs. 81,64,050/- as income in terms of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act constituting the difference the purchase value and the guideline value of the immovable property purchased without assigning proper reasons and justification ... appellant in the capacity of individual, thereby vitiating the revision order. 10. The PCIT failed to appreciate that the issue of applicability of Section 56[2)[vii)[b)[ii) of the Act was considered in the re-assessment proceedings and ought to have appreciated that there was no Violation

Tabrez Arif Lakha, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 31(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3650/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Kanabar, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 43CSection 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

applicable as they apply to builder/developer only, which is not a case for the assessee. Also, it is contended that provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) are applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2014, i.e. AY 2014-15 and the present case is for AY 2013-14. At best, ld. AO ought to have

ITO, Lower Parel vs. Sohit Shravankumar Sadh, Lower Parel

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3180/MUM/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2024

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Income Tax Officer Sohit Shravankumar Sadh Room No. 213, 3Rd Floor, A-2, Unit No. 79, Shah & Amp, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Nahar Industrial Estate, Mumbai – 400 012 S J Road, Mumbai-400 013

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

Trib) ACIT vs. Smt. Hansaben B. Mehta 287 ITR 142 (Pune-ITAT) Smt. Nargis K. Irani vs. ITO 10. The ld. A.O. invoked section 56(2)(vii)(b) in his first draft assessment order dated 15.02.2021 and, subsequently invoked section 56(2

Manjula Himmatlal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-20(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2261/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jeetender C. LalaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(b)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

added to the total income of the assessee under the head income from other sources in view of the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. In response, the assessee submitted that she purchased the property jointly with her husband for a total consideration ... registered agreement, the assessee has received the immovable property in the financial year 2013-14 and therefore the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act are applicable to the present case. The AO further held that as the date of the agreement in the present case

Income Tax Officer, Kalyan vs. Ritu Manish Pokar, Dombivli

In the result, the appeal of the Department, ITA No

ITA 2797/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

flat at Rs. 3,07,60,000/- against the market value of Rs. 3,53,94,000/- which attracts the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act (the Act for short). It was mentioned by Ld. AO that despite several opportunities, the appellant ... explain the discrepancy and hence the same was added under the head, “income from other sources” as per the above provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, while passing the assessment order. 3 Ritu Manish Pokar 5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. AO, the appellant filed

Gajulapalli Shoban Babu, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cirlce, Tirupati

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 298/HYD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Hon'Bleआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.296, 297 & 298/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Shri Gajulapalli Shoban Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Babu Central Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Tirupati Pan:Agfpg4314G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Mohd.Afzal, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B. Balakrishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/11/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Mohd.Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

ITA Nos 296 297 and 298 of 2020 Gajulapalli Shoban Babu आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE

Gajulapalli Shoban Babu, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cirlce, Tirupati

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 297/HYD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Mohd.Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

ITA Nos 296 297 and 298 of 2020 Gajulapalli Shoban Babu आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE