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The case addresses the taxability of cash withdrawn from sub-contractors' bank accounts by employees of a civil contractor engaged in infrastructure development.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

Vasudev Yashwant Abhyankar, Raigad vs. ITO, Ward-4, Panvel

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

ITA 663/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.663/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vasudev Yashwant Vs. Ito, Ward-4, Panvel. Abhyankar, Jambhulpada, Sudhagad Raigad- 410205. Pan : Acypa1203H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.02.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit(A)-Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Passing An Ex-Parte Order Without Considering The Matter On Its Merits. He Failed To Consider The Submissions Made By Assessee Manually Before The Hon’Ble Cit(A)-2, Thane During The Physical Hearings Before Him On Various Dates. As Such, The Impugned Order Has Been Passed Without Considering The Matter On Its Merits. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred On Facts & In Law In Making Addition Of Rs.9,96,500 On Account Of Purchase Of Land For A Consideration Less Than That Of The Value Determined By The Stamp

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 43CSection 56(2)(vii)

land for a consideration less than that of the value determined by the stamp 2 duty valuation authority by invoking the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act without appreciating the facts as well as the submissions made in this behalf. 3. The Learned

Mohammad Ibrahim, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-32(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1408/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1408/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mohammad Ibrahim……..……..…..……............…...……………....Appellant 6 Jhautala Road, Park Circus, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan:Aanpi9964N] Vs. Ito, Ward-32(3), Kolkata…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Smt. Swatee Baid, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 21, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 30, 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 19.10.2023 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 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Action Of The A.O Of Making The Addition Of Rs. 47,55,787/- By Wrongly Invoking The Provisions Of Sec 56(2)(Vii)(B)(Ii). 2 For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld Cit(A) Ought To Have Considered The Fact That The Assessee Is A Promoter & Real Estate Developer & The Asset Purchased Was To Be Used For Business & Was Not A Capital Asset As Such Provisions Of Sec 56(2\(Vii) (B)(Ii) Were Not Applicable.

Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

assessee was calculated at Rs.47,55,790/- and the said amount was added to the income of the assessee invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. 4. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition so made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Before ... Swatee Baid, the ld. Counsel for the assessee, has submitted that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act were not attracted in the case of the assessee. She has submitted that the assessee is in the business of real estate developer and the property

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

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

ITA 3236/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vinit Mangal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Kumar, J. CIT

Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

proceed with the case in hand. 3. The Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order made the addition of Rs.8,00,000/- taxable under section 56(2)(vii) of the Act allegedly received as unsecured loan in the preceding years. The assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition before

Jalpa Savankumar Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 348/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 249(4)

implication u/s.56(2)vii) of the Act, as the husband and wife are well within the “relatives” as defined in the explanation to section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. However, without considering the any of this submission/document filed by the assessee and without furnishing opportunity to the assessee, Ld.CIT

The ACIT Central-1, Bhopal vs. Smt Meenakshi Saraiya, Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the revenue and CO are dismissed

ITA 231/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit (Central)- Smt. Meenakshi Saraiya Bhopal E-13/111, Arera Colony Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan: Anrps3407K Revenue By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Assessee By Shri Ila Parmar, Cit- Dr

Section 132Section 132(4)

source of income and the same was found to be justified. She has also offered income for taxation as per the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. Therefore, the statement given by the appellant that she received the said plot from the second party

Shekhar Anandrao Bagal, Mumbai vs. Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

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

ITA 365/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath Pasale, D.R

Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

vide assessment order dated 28.05.2023 under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act made the addition of Rs.4,37,500/- under section 56(2)(vii) of the Act which was challenged by the assessee before the Ld. Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine

Kulbirsingh Kirpalsingh Maker, Vashi vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 14 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 287/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Us Reads As Under:-

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

contention of the assessee that the stamp value as prevailing at the time of the agreement be considered for the purpose of section 56(2)(vii) is not acceptable. The rights and ownership have only been transferred at the time of registration and hence stamp duty value prevailing at that

Alliance Propmart Private Limited, Greater Noida vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3298/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

rate of above property was less than the Circle rate, the actual price was lower than the Value as per Stamp Duty. 5. Section 56(2)(vii) (b) of I.T. Act has been brought into effect with effect from 01 April 2014 i.e. Assessment Year 2014-15 pertaining to fiscal ... company has bought the abovementioned shop on 11.05.2011 which pertains to fiscal year 2011-12. Further, as per Para (d) of Explanation to Section 56(2)(vii) of the I.T. Act, Property means 'The Capital Asset of the Assessee while in the case of company, the shop purchased was lying

Jyoti Goyal, Bhopal vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhopal

Appeal is partly allowed as mentioned above

ITA 380/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2012-13 Jyoti Goyal, Dcit, 18, Shyamla Hills, 1(1), बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abbpg3493P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2024

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

assessee the Ld. CIT(A), Delhi, was not justified in confirming disallowance of addition of Rs. 90,75,000/- invoking provision of section 56(2)(vii) and or 28(iv) of the Act. (3) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the assessee ... without consideration and therefore the transaction was taxable u/s 56(2)(vii)(b). When the AO show-caused, the assessee submitted that the section 56(2)(vii)(b) was not applicable because of two-fold reasons, (i) a sum of Rs. 3,75,000/- was paid by cheque

Anil Kumar Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 2150/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH

Arafaath Exports Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Meerut

ITA 4076/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Arafaath Exports Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito, C/O Vinod Kumar Goel, Ward-1(1), 282, Boundry Road, Meerut. Civil Lines, Meerut. Pan: Aaica3838R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinod Kumar Goel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .05.2024

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND

Mahesh Ramkrishna Bhingare, Vivekanand Nagar, Nagpur vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax Or Income-Tax Officer, Ward -1 Range-1, Nagpur, Saraf Chamber, Income Tax Office, Saraf Chambers, Sadar

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 224/NAG/2023[AY 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 May 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Duragkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 50C(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

accepted the contention of the assessee that the said properties are agricultural lands and not a capital asset and the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not applicable in the said transactions and treated the same as income of the assessee. 3 ITA.No

Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(3), Pune vs. Gopal Janardan Tambe, Pune

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

ITA 894/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sarvesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

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

said agricultural lands was Rs.5,75,15,000/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 154 on 19.02.2019 invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer passed a rectification order u/s 154 wherein he assessed income at Rs.5 ... bringing the difference between the sale of consideration and the stamp duty valuation to tax by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act on the ground that there were no sufficient evidences to prove the land purchased to be an agricultural land. 8. The appellant

ITO, W-6(5), Mohali vs. Smt. Gurdev Kaur, Kharar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1448/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148

However property received for a consideration which is less than market value of property was also brought to tax subject to provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c). However the property was defined in explanation below second proviso to section 56(2) (vii)(c ) as below: Property means the following

Ajmer Singh, Mohali vs. ITO, W-6(5), Mohal

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1439/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148

Ajmer Singh, Mohali vs. ITO, W-6(5), Mohal

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1438/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148

Dipti Garg, Tonk vs. ITO WD, Tonk

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 633/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Dr. S Seethalakshmi

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

asset is not a capital asset then it does not fall under the definition of property mentioned in its explanation (b) to section 56(2)(vii) of the Act and, therefore, the impugned addition is uncalled for. Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the following decisions: i) ITAT order in case ... money or value of property referred to in clause (vii) or clause (viia) of sub- section (2) of Section 56”. Section 56 (2) (vii) (a) of the Act applies to any sum of money while Section 56 (2) (vii) (b) of the Act applies to value of property and meaning

Savji Karsan Chowdhary, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

ITA 3987/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vinayak R. Pandya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan, D.R

Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

assessee claimed that he has purchased the property in 2009 is baseless and cannot be accepted. The AO also reproduced the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act which enumerates that where an individual receives any immovable property after 01.10.2009 for a consideration which is less ... assessee as income from other sources. The AO further observed that from the above discussion it is clear that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act apply to the case of the assessee as the stamp duty value in case of the assessee is Rs.1

Rajankumar Vikrambhai Patel, Anand vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Anand

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

ITA 112/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Urjit B. Shah, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 69A

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2012-13 Rajankumar The

Arvind Dada Kolekar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 16(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4137/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHARI (Accountant Member)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151ASection 56(2)(vii)

erred in making addition of Differential amount of Rs. 18,05,500/ being difference between Sale Consideration and Stamp Duty Value under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. At the outset, ld. Counsel submitted that ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ... total consideration of Rs.2,59,42,000/- whereas stamp valuation of the property was Rs.2,77,47,500/- and accordingly, proceedings of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) are attracted with respect to difference amount of Rs.18,05,500/-. Thus, based on this information, the ld. AO has issued a notice