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The case addresses the taxability of cash withdrawn from sub-contractors' bank accounts by employees of a civil contractor engaged in infrastructure development.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

Just Dial Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2020-

ITA 254/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, Ms. MokshaFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 250

56(2) of the Act. From the perusal of section 56, we find that the term property has been defined in Explanation to section 56(2)(vii) of the Act as under: – “Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause,— (a) ………….; (b) ………..; (c) ………..; ITAs No.254, 486, 485, 484, 483/MUM/2024 ... work of art; or (ix) bullion; 16. At the outset, it is evident that the aforesaid definition is restricted for the purpose of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. We find that in JCIT v/s Saheli Leasing & Industries Ltd., reported in [2010] 324 ITR 170, the Hon’ble Supreme

Jitendra Jashbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 707/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 56(2)(vii)

erred in law and on facts in not adjudicating for addition made by the Ld. A.O. of Rs.7,47,000/- under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) by ignoring material evidence on records.” 3. The assessee is an individual and filed return of income on 31.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs.6 ... field the report, the Assessment Year: 2016-17 Page 2 of 3 Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.7,47,000/- in respect of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before

Income Tax Officer-16(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ms. Shabnam Laiq Ahmed Khan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3849/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Swapnil Savant, Sr. DR

Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 69

since the registration happened for a value of Rs. 4,93,43,822/- an addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act is warranted. Therefore, the AO made addition towards 1/4th share of the difference amount being Rs.80,33,935/- under section 56(2)(vii ... regard our attention was drawn to the assessment orders (page 186 to 189 of PB). 7. With regard to the addition made under section 56(2)(vii)(b) the ld. AR submitted that the assessee is not a purchaser and therefore the said section cannot be invoked in assessee

Subhash N Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 25(1)-3, Mumbai

ITA 3826/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH

Pallavi Devang Trivedi, Godhra vs. Nationa Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (Jurisdiction AO : the ITO, Ward-1), Godhra

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 843/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

fact that the onus to prove source of gift received from relative was not envisaged on the Appellant as per provisions of erstwhile Section 56(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) and thus, the provisions of Section 69A Assessment Year: 2014-15 Page 2

Bharat Keshavlal Shah, Pune vs. Dy. CIT Circle 5, Pune

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

ITA 799/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.799/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Bharat Keshavlal Shah, Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. 27, Bharat Pushpa, Sujay Garden, Mukundnagar, Pune- 411037. Pan : Adxps3821M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Jha Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.12.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Assessee Requests For Condonation Of Delay Of 62 Days In Filing The Appeal Since There Was A Reasonable Cause On The Part Of The Assessee In Not Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee For Want Of Prosecution On The Ground That The Assessee Had Not Filed Any Submissions & Hence Was Not Interested In Pursuing The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Jha

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Syed Kalbay Rizvi, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax 10(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4450/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR

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

stamp duty valuation valued the property at Rs. 2,00,17,500/-. Invoking the I.T.A. No. 4450/Mum/2023 Syed Kalbay Rizvi 3 provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act, the AO sought clarification from the assessee why the stamp duty value should not be taken as a consideration

Sparsh Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. ITO Ward-2(4), Haryana

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 86/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Punyah Building Vs Ito Materials Pvt. Ltd. Ward-2 (1) House No.1002, Near Talab Faridabad Shiv Colony, Old Faridabad Haryana Ballahgarh Haryana 122002 Pan No.Aagcp8742B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sparsh Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Plot No.1066, Near Janta Barat Ward-2 (4) Ghar Baba Nagar, Faridabad Faridabad Haryana 121002 Haryana Pan No.Aascs2575D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Speedy Courier Services Pvt. Vs Ito Ltd. Ward- 2 (4) Plot No.1022, Near Talab Shiv Faridabad Colony, Faridabad Haryana Pan No.Aascs2579R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 131oSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

hereunder:- "28. Now what we are required to examine whether under these facts and circumstances Assessing Officer after invoking the deeming provision of Section 56(2)(vii) could have determined the fair market value of the premium on shares issued at Nil after rejecting the valuation report given ... accepted. 28. Now what we are required to examine whether under these facts and circumstances Assessing Officer after invoking the deeming provision of section 56(2)(vii) could have determined the fair market value of the premium on shares issued at Nil after rejecting the valuation report given

Punyah Building Materials Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 2(1), Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 81/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Section 131oSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

Speedy Courier Services Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 2(4), Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 80/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Section 131oSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

Hareshkumar Prakashbhai Chaudhari, Mehsana vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mehsana

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

ITA 582/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

stated purchase without property. After taking cognisance of the assessee’s submissions, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.30,74,675/- under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act in relation to the two properties based on the information received from the SRO, Aslali. 4. Being aggrieved

Akash, Noida vs. Income Tax Officer (It), Ward-1, Pune

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

ITA 1535/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)(vii)

each, but the stamp duty valuation of the said properties were Rs.37,18,000/-, therefore, AO was of the opinion that provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) were applicable. Accordingly, AO issued a show cause notice to the assessee. Assessee again filed an elaborate reply. However, the AO made ... erred in both facts and law by invoking section 50C on the basis of registry and treating income from other source under section 56(2)(vii)(b) on the basis of his own presumptions, surmises and conjectures. 11. Ld. AO never gave any reason as to why income is being

Gaurav Dugar, Chennai vs. PCIT-8, Chennai

ITA 948/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147wSection 148Section 263Section 43CSection 52(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(vii)

Rs.11,16,250/- and the same is to be treated as income of the assessee in view of the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. 3. Brief facts are that the original assessment was completed by the DCIT., Non-Corporate Circle-11, Chennai u/s.143 ... registered sale deed was Rs.11,16,250/- and that has to be brought to tax, in view of the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. The assessee replied to the show- cause notice on 11.03.2024, but, the Pr.CIT was not convinced, thus he passed revision

Pushpendra Bansal, Andheri West vs. ACIT-CC-3(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3237/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanpushpendra Bansal Vs. Acit-Cc-3(1), Mumbai 202, 2Nd Floor, Morya Blue Moon, Room No. 1924, 19Th Floor, Air New Link Road, Mumbai – 400053. India Building, Nariman Pan: Abipb2394M Point, Mumbai – 400021. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 2Section 250Section 269TSection 271DSection 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. RAJ

Asitava Bhattacharya, Howrah vs. ACIT, Cir, . 46, Kolkata

ITA 959/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.959/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA डॉ. मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य के सम" Before Dr. Manish

Arvind Kumar Agrawal, Gurgaon vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Incoem Tax Department

In the results, the appeal of assessee stands dismissed

ITA 139/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Kataria, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT

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

higher in the year of purchases i.e. AY 2018-19 however the transaction of purchases of property is covered by the proviso of section 56(2)(vii) which states that stamp duty of the date of agreement may be adopted where the part consideration has been paid otherwise than ... High Courts and considered the provisions of 56(2)(vii) pre- amendment and post-amendment. Learned ITAT has held that law contained in Section 56(2)(vii)(b) as stood on the date of allotment letter (on 11.11.2009), falling in assessment year 2010-11, did not contemplate the situation

Shri Rajdeep Singh Chimni, Chandigarh vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the addition so made and sustained by the ld CIT(A) is hereby deleted and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 722/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155(15)Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 23,57,085/- made by applying the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) which is arbitrary and unjustified. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that (rectification) was carried ... purchase value and the circle rate came down to less than 10% tolerance band which does not invite the invocation of provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b). 4. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed

D.K. Constructions, Bhopal vs. Central Circle - 1, Bhopal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 316/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 D.K.Constructions, Pcit (Central), Dk Cottage, Bhopal 24, Carat E8, बनाम/ Near Gujrati Colony,, Vs. Bawadiya Kalan, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaafd7121P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

applicable as per the term ‘property’ has been defined in Explanation to section 56(2)(x) read with Explanation (d) to section 56(2)(vii) to mean only a ‘capital asset’. It is also clarified by CBDT in Para No. 13.4 of Circular No. 01/2011 dated 06.04.2011 [F.No. 142/1/2011-SO ... Jain Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 98/JP/2019 order dated 08.06.2020, that the provision of section 56(2)(x)(b) [or corresponding erstwhile provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b)] is not applicable where the property purchased by assessee is not a ‘capital asset’ or it is a part of ‘stock

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Ashok Narendra Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3373/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year 2018-19 Acit, Circle – 19(1) Ashok Narendra Mehta, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, 132, 13Th Floor, Lalbaug, Vs. Siddhesh Darshan, Mumbai. 10Th Khetwadi Main Road, Khetwadi, Mumbai Pan : Aivpm9318A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Vimal Punmiya, C.A. For Revenue : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 13-08-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-08-2024 Order Per B.R. Baskaran, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.DR

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “A” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

Mr Ajay Laxmidas Sompura, Mumbai vs. The I.T.O. Ward-25(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1050/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Shri Akhilesh Deshmukh, A/RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D/R

Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

prejudice to other grounds of appeal, the Ld. NFAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 44,17,500/- by invoking provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the said section is not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the Appellants case