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The case addresses the taxability of cash withdrawn from sub-contractors' bank accounts by employees of a civil contractor engaged in infrastructure development.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

Yashoda Nimmaturi, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 337/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri K. Narasimha Charis.No Ita Nos. Appellant Respondent A.Y 591/Hyd/2022 Shri Ramesh Babu 1 Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 2 619/Hyd/2022 Nimmatoori Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1659G 3 700/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Shri Ramesh Babu 2018-19 Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1659G 4 311/Hyd/2022 Raja Babu Nimmatoori 2013-14 589/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 5 2016-17 Pan:Acspn1662R 2(4) Hyderabad 6 590/Hyd/2022 2017-18 7 621/Hyd/2022 2018-19 8 701/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Raja Babu 2018-19 2(4) Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1662R 9 337/Hyd/2022 Yashoda Nimmatoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 593/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 10 2017-18 618/Hyd/2022 Pan:Acspn1657J 11 2018-19 332/Hyd/2022 12 Anudeep Nimmattoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 13 475/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2017-18 476/Hyd/2022 Pan:Ahbpn2081Q 14 2018-19 15 592/Hyd/2022 Sulochana Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 Nimmattoori 2(4) Hyderabad 16 620/Hyd/2022 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1664K 594/Hyd/2022 Manjusha Nimmatoori 17 Acit, Central Circle 2018-19 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1666M िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)Section 57

Ramesh Babu and Others vi) Section 56(2)(x) on the above (i.e. Excess of SD value over sale consideration). vii) Section 56(2)(vii)(b) on the above (i.e. Excess of SD value over sale consideration). viii) Unexplained Investment in Land at Road No.40, Jubilee Hills-69 (difference amount

Anudeep Nimmatoori, Hyderabad vs. ACIT Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 332/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)Section 57

Raja Babu Nimmatoori, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 311/HYD/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)Section 57

Sarkar Talwar, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward-II(3), Faridabad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2869/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CA and Shri Parth Singhal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154

nature of appreciation of his personal achievements and talent and thus, cannot be brought to tax by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(a) of the Act. This proceeds from benefit match received by assessee is in appreciation of his past achievements in the International Cricket arena

Chandana Mukherjee, Burdwan vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Burdwan

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

ITA 808/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

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

I.T.A. No.: 808/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Chandana Mukherjee. wrong and did not apply his mind that in the case of the appellant Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act is not at all applicable. He has cited the order of the ld. CIT(A) passed

Sandip Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 45(2), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1057/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata08 Aug 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1057/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Sandip Kumar Agarwal,………….…..…………Appellant P-19/1, Vip Road, Scheme-Vii M, Kolkata-700054 [Pan:Admpa3225G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………………Respondent Ward-45(2), Kolkata

Section 155Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

2. The issue involved in this appeal is whether any deemed gift deserves to be assessable in the hands of the assessee under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act or not. 3. With the assistance of ld. Representatives, we have gone through the record carefully ... Assessing Officer. 5. On due consideration of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that 3rd proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) contemplates that in case, an assessee disputes the valuation of the property for the purpose of charging stamp duty, then, as 2 Sandip

Mim Components Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 683/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri A. Ravish Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, CIT-DR

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

applicable to the facts of this case. 5. The learned FAA & AO have erred in law by levying tax under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act was introduced by the Finance Act 2012. The purpose of introduction of Section 56

Shail Gas Pvt Ltd, Ghazaibad vs. Pr.CIT -7, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 630/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(via)

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

Vijay Bhagchand Bafna, Shirpur vs. DCIT, Circle, Dhule

ITA 181/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

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

Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(vii)

Valuation of said land was Rs.65,67,000/-. The AO issued noticed u/sec.148 on the ground that income has escaped assessment as per section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The assessee filed Return of Income in response to notice u/sec.148 of the Act showing income at Rs.31 ... assessee for the purchase of agricultural land and the Government Valuation, the AO held that there was a deemed income as per Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act of Rs.7,41,750/-, though the assessee had offered Rs.7,41,750/- in the Return of Income filed u/sec.148

Hirak Sarkar, Hooghly vs. ACIT, Cir. 23(1), Hooghly

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

ITA 892/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Ld Cit(Appeals) As His Mother Was Not Well Because Of Prolonged Disease Was Going Under Medical Supervision And

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 250Section 50C(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

also added in the hands of the assessee protectively as income from other source under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee went into appeal before Ld. CIT(A) where the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 9. Dissatisfied with

Rohit Vijay Soparkar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(3)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 2729/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

circumstances of the case and in law, The Learned Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of Rs. 55, 20,000 under section 56(2)(vii)(b) (ii) of IT Act. 1961, without referring the matter to the DVO and it is your appellant contention that the prevailing rate

Sureshkumar Jethanand Rawlani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 17(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 1054/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D.R. &

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246Section 4Section 5Section 56(2)(vii)Section 80

lower appeal wherein the learned CIT(A)/NFAC’s detailed discussion in paragraph 8.1 to 8.4 has deleted the above stated former section 56(2)(vii) addition of Rs.74,73,864/- on the one hand and upheld the latter amount (supra) on the other. It is in this factual backdrop

Sureshkumar Jethanand Rawlani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 17(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 1053/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D.R. &

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246Section 4Section 5Section 56(2)(vii)Section 80

Sudha Subhana Desai, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai

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

ITA 876/MUM/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan (Jm) I.T.A. No. 876/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2015-16) Sudha Subhana Desai Vs. Ito-16(3)(5) 24K Glitterati, Flat No. Room No. 447, 4 Th 1003, New Dp Road, Floor, Aayakar Pimpale Nilakh, Mumbai- Bhavan, M. K. Road, 411027. Mumbai-400020. Pan : Avdpd0725H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajendra Agiwal Department By Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 09.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 19.07.2024 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (Am) :-

Section 56(2)(vii)

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 4. We notice that the proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act makes it the mandatory for the AO to refer the matter of valuation of the immovable property

Mr Charan Singh, Greater Noida vs. ITO, Noida

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2490/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. No. 2490/Del/2016 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) Mr. Charan Singh Vs. Ito B-33-34, Sector-Gamma-I, Ward – 1(2), G. Noida, Up Noida Pan: Arips 7397 H (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

story and an afterthought, in order to avoid capital gain arose on the sale of property in question and applying the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, capital gain to the tune of Rs.1,22,99,181/- was determined by Learned AO which stood confirmed ... indicated that the transaction was a Gift only and had completed on 01.10.2009. In that view of the matter, the application of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act as introduced by the Finance Act, 2010 Charan Singh vs. ITO Asst.Year :2010-11 on 01.10.2009 having no retrospective effect

Shri. Naagesh Kanaiyalal Thakkar, Dharawad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hubli

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

ITA 550/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeynagesh Kanaiyalal Thakkar The Income Tax Officer Lovely Sweets, Baradan Saal Ward - 2(1), Hubli Hubli Sarafkatta S.O. Vs. Hubli 580020 Pan – Aaupt7785P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vinay K. Kulkarni, Ca Revenue By: Shri Guru Kumar S. Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1060678544(1) Dated 08.02.2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Confirmed The Additions Made Under Section 56(2)(Vii) Which Is Against The Facts. 2. The Addition Confirmed Is Against The Provisions Of The Income Tax Act 3. The Beneficial Provision Is Read In A Too Rigid Way So As To Deny The Benefit Conferred By The Income Tax Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vinay K. Kulkarni, CAFor Respondent: Shri Guru Kumar S. Addl CIT-DR

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

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. The learned commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the additions made under section 56(2)(Vii) which is against the facts. 2. The addition confirmed is against the provisions of the Income Tax Act 3. The beneficial provision ... payment made on 11.05.2009 was more than 9 months after the date of agreement. In view of clear provisions of second proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) that "first proviso shall apply only in a case where the amount of consideration referred to therein, or a part thereof

Basabdutta Dutta., Bankura vs. ITO, Ward- 3(1), Kenduadihi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 868/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.868/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Basabdutta Dutta…………………..……………………....………....Appellant Kayasthapara, P.O+Dist – Bankura, Pin-722101. [Pan: Adtpd8748C] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Bankura….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate & D.K. Sen, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sallong Yaden, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 11, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.07.2023 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 In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A)(Nfac) In Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Erred In Confirming Disallowance On Account Of Exemption Of Rs.1,65,52,344.00 Claimed U/S 54F On Return Of Income. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A)(Nfac) In Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Is Not Justified To Confirm Addition Of Rs.7,38,588.00 Made U/S 56(2)(Vii) 3. For That The Appellant Reserves His Right To Add To, To Alter, To Amend The Grounds & To Adduce Paper & Document At The Time Of Hearing.”

Section 250Section 54FSection 56(2)(VII)

estimated the market value of the property at Rs.2,22,38,588/-. The Assessing Officer thus added Rs.7,38,588/- invoking provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 8. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions so made by the Assessing Officer. 9. The ld. counsel ... transfer deed as compared to the value determined by the DVO was less than 5%. He further referred to the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act r.w.s 50C of the Act and submitted that as per the 3rd Proviso to section 50C as inserted

Shri Robert Paul Raj, Mumbai vs. ITO 42(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 509/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Harshal Ajmera, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 274Section 56(2)(vii)

difference between Rs.83,50,000/- – Rs.70,81,000/-) was added to the total income of the assessee from “e-sources” under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. Subsequently, the penalty proceedings were also initiated by issuance of notice under section 270A of the Act on 16.04.2011, however

Mohd.Imtiyaz Fakir Mohd Shaikh, Blue Flame Appartment, Bandra vs. ITO Ward 23(2)(3), Mumbai, Maharashtra

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3892/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Jm) & Shri Girish Agrawal (Am)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 69C

imposed section 271(1)(c) penalty amounting to Rs. 986,941 pertaining to assessee’s corresponding ‘quantum’ additions of short term capital gains, section 56(2)(vii) and section 69C unexplained investment involving Rs. 21,72,253/-, Rs. 11,28,405, Rs. 460,000/- respectively, made in the course 2 ... stamp valuation thereof, wherein latter amount(s) stand adopted for computing capital gains and income from ‘other’ sources; under section 50C and section 56(2)(vii) of the Act, respectively. There is no material in the case file which could suggest that the assessee had either received or paid anything

Shiv Kumar Jolly, Jammu vs. DCIT (Intl. Tax), Chandigarh

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

ITA 721/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rishab Singla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 69A

these deposits, disclosing its origin and the name of the person who has transferred the funds, cumulatively totalling to Rs. 47,49,824/-. Section 56(2)(vii)(a) of IT Act provides that where an individual receives in any previous year from any person or persons any sum of money ... shall be chargeable to income tax under the head income from other sources. However as per clause (a) of the second proviso to Section 56(2)(vii) of the IT Act, if the said amount is received from any relative then the same cannot be included as an income