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The case addresses the taxability of cash withdrawn from sub-contractors' bank accounts by employees of a civil contractor engaged in infrastructure development.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

Abdurrehman Shamsulhaq Bapu, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 1(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4479/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR
Section 144C(2)Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

income from other sources. Since assessee did not file any details in this regard, ld. Assessing Officer by quoting the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) added the said difference of Rs.2,85,57,920/- as income from other sources. 3.1. Further, regarding the source of investment

Late Chanchal Hiralal Shah (Represented by Legal Heir Rohit Hiralal Shah), Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6349/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 151ASection 56(2)(vii)

whereas the stamp duty value of the said property determined by the stamp valuation authority was ₹57,83,400/-. Accordingly, the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act were found to be applicable. It was 4 I.T.A. No. 6349/Mum/2025 noted that, the difference

Mhealth Ventures India P Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir-15(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6175/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2016-17 Mhealth Ventures India Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Ltd., Of Income Tax Circle 729H Raj Legacy, Lbs Marg, Vs. 15(2) (2), Andheri, Mumbai – 400083. Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Pan – Aagcm9200P Karve Road, Mumbai – 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Viraj Mehta, Ca (Virtually Appeared) Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.07.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessing Officer, Vide Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Has Made The Additions Of Rs.3,41,84,927/- & Rs.27,410/- Respectively Under Section 56(2)(Vii)(B) & Section 2(24)(X) As Deemed Income & Added The Same To The Income Of The Assessee. 2 Mhealth Ventures India Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, SR. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

passed under section 143(3) of the Act, has made the additions of Rs.3,41,84,927/- and Rs.27,410/- respectively under section 56(2)(vii)(b) and section 2(24)(x) as deemed income and added the same to the income of the Assessee. 2 Mhealth Ventures India

Sudalai Mani Gurumoorthi, Thiruvarur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Thanjavur

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3274/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3274/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr.S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

addition has directed the AO to adopt the lower of the value as per valuation report or registering authority for the purpose of section 56(2)(vii)(b). It has been brought to our notice during the course of hearing there is no revision made to the addition and that

Jayshreeben Rohitbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(2)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1524/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyaljayshreeben Rohitbhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. 9, Chinubhai Centre, Ward-5(2)(2), Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380006. [Pan :Aawpp1043 J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vijay H Patel, Ar Respondent By: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Vijay H Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Devyani Deepak Rawtal, Nagpur vs. ITO(It&Tp) Bhopal, Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 129/IND/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Feb 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. AO/Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) erred in upholding the addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act") amounting to Rs. 10,98,896~being 50% share of the difference between the stamp ... Godrej Properties Ltd.” at a fair price and the seller is not a related party to assessee. She submitted that the purpose of section 56(2)(vii)(b) is to curb tax evasion by payment of money over and above fair market value but in the facts of present case

Ragini Bhadauria, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 49(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 9134/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 9134/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Ragini Bhadauria, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Sunila Chanana, Ca, Ward-49(1), New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Amhpb7637F Assessee By: Sh. S. Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.02.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1083905805(1) Dated 19.12.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. S. Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 56(2)(vii)

sole substantive grievance herein, it is noticed at the outset that she is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ action invoking section 56(2)(vii)(b) addition of Rs.13,44,519/- representing the difference between purchase price of the immovable property in question to the tune of Rs.19 ... interest Ms. Bhanu Pratap Singh in favour of Sushant Golf city/developer, Lucknow (UP). This being the clinching factual position, it emerges that section 56(2)(vii)(b) 1st and 2nd proviso(es) make it clear that such a payment made through specified channel is to be treated as the fair

Sanjeev Kumar Saxena, Lucknow vs. ITO-3(4), Lucknow -New, Lucknow

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

ITA 99/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

impugned assessment order ignoring the fact, an I.T.A. No.99/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 3 arbitrary addition of Rs.11,59,091/- made under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of The Income Tax Act, 1961 by ld. AO without any proper basis which is wholly unjustified, much too high and deserves ... assessee and the property sold by the assessee. The provisions of Section 50C(2) of the Act as well as proviso to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act;mandate reference by the Assessing Officer to the Valuation Officer when the assessee claims before the Assessing Officer that

Asha Shivajirao Bhise, Latur vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 2110/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 56(2)(vii)

whereas market value as per stamp duty valuation is ₹ 3,03,61,000/-. The Ld.AO, therefore, invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act concluded that for the difference amount of ₹2,02,61,000/-, the addition of ₹1,01,30,500/- (50%) deserves

Zahida Bano Mohammad Yusuf Shaikh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(4)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 8244/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalzahida Bano Mohammad Yusuf Shaikh A/10 Jai Hind Society, Asalpha Gahtkopar Link, Ro Mohili Village Sakinaka, Mumbai - 400072 ............... Appellant Pan: Buups3134C V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-41(4)(4), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ……………… Respondent Mumbai – 400020

For Appellant: Ms. Shama Mohd. Ismail Patel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2017-18. 2 2. The solitary grievance of the assessee is against the addition made under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 3. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The brief facts ... determined by the Stamp Duty Authority, the assessee was asked to show cause as to why the difference should not be taxed under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. In response, the assessee submitted that the said property is MHADA-registered and its value is determined

Kundan Jayantilal Bhatt, Mumbai vs. ITO, Circle 4, Thane

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

ITA 6522/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarkundan Jayantilal Bhatt Ito Cirlce-4, 277, Kundan Bunglow Room No. 2, Ashar Behind Yashwant Heights, Vs. It Park, 6Th Floor, Opp. Vidyavihar School, Road No. 16Z, Virar (West), Shivansai, Wagle Industrial Thane, Maharashtra – Estate, Thane, 401 303 Maharashtra- 400604 Pan/Gir No. Adjpb4878K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ravi Gupta, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

Section 142ASection 142A(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 56(2)(vii)

stamp duty value and the purchase consideration worked out to Rs. 81,06,000/-. 4. The Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and issued show cause notice dated 12.12.2018 proposing to treat the difference amount of Rs. 81,06,000/- as income ... under section 143(3) read with section 142A of the Act, dated 21.08.2019, and made an addition of Rs. 81,06,000/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The total assessed income was determined at Rs. 1,11,16,680/-.Penalty proceedings under section 274 read with

Naresh Kumar Morya, Narela vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 61(1), Civic Centre

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2292/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhannaresh Kumar Morya, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Rajiv Colony, Narela, Ward-61(1), New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ahupm7348A

For Appellant: Shri H. S. Hooda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the learned CITA was justified in confirming the addition made under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act on account of differential Naresh Kumar Morya consideration of immovable property in the facts and circumstances of the instant ... learned AO recorded reasons that a sum of Rs. 3,32,960 being the differential consideration had escaped assessment in terms of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and issued notice under Section 148 of the Act on 29-07-2022 after taking approval from the competent authority

Poonam, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-5, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6209/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 56(2)(vii)

ITA No. 6209/DEL/2025 Poonam vs DCIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR

V S Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-3(5), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2633/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 234DSection 250Section 270ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

Trust were only ‘Relatives’ within the definition of the term under proviso I to sec 56(2)(x) read with Explanation (e) to section 56(2)(vii) and hence the transfer is exempt by the virtue of the Explanation. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... those Trusts, which is established solely for the benefit of relative of the individual. The term ‘relative’ as defined in Explanation (e) to Section 56(2)(vii)which reads as follows: “(e) “relative” means,- (i) in case of an individual- (A) spouse of the individual; (B) brother or sister

Vikas Agarwal, Sambhal vs. Income Tax Officer, Sambhal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6268/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Saim, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

NFAC/2013-14/10126979. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of Appeal: “1. That the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in applying Section 56(2)(vii)(b) to rural agricultural land which is excluded from ‘capital asset’ u/s 2(14)(iii). 1 | P a g e 6268_DEL_2025_Vikas Aggarwal ... investment of Rs. 8,15,340/- was unexplained since no return had been filed and provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) were also applicable, a notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2021. The assessee filed return on 28.05.2021, declaring income of Rs. 4,96,270/- . While source of investment

Mamta Gourav Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 20(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7345/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 147Section 270ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

accordingly held that the assessee has received an immoveable property without consideration and the same was brought to tax, invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The assessee thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has since dismissed the appeal ... developed cases and is therefore, not a gratuitous transfer. Further, it was submitted that the AO has erred in invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, which was replaced with Section 56(2)(x) of the Act w.e.f. AY. 2018-19. It was accordingly submitted

Mamta Gourav Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 20(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 7344/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 147Section 270ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

accordingly held that the assessee has received an immoveable property without consideration and the same was brought to tax, invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The assessee thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has since dismissed the appeal ... developed cases and is therefore, not a gratuitous transfer. Further, it was submitted that the AO has erred in invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, which was replaced with Section 56(2)(x) of the Act w.e.f. AY. 2018-19. It was accordingly submitted

Subhash Suryakant Phadkar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 35(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed in above terms

ITA 3490/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am Mr. Subhash Suryakant Phadkar, Income Tax Officer, B-184, Kalpataru Sparkle, Bandra East, Ward 35(3)(4), Vs. Mumbai- 400051 Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai- 400051 Pan No.Aaapp3456H (Appellant) (Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Mayur Makadia, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha P. Kaushik, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54Section 54E

payment of Rs.53.50 lakhs to each member of the society. The Revenue held the receipt to be income from other sources as per section 56(2)(vii)(a) of the Act, where any sum of money received exceeding Rs.50,000/- without consideration is chargeable as “income from other sources

Rivet Health Club Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 2(2), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6182/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

under : - “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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata vs. Mira Bibi, Murshidabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 727/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra &For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 56(2)Section 68

brothers-in-law are completely exempted in the hands of any individual. However, it is observed that in spite of adhering the section 56(2)(vii) of the Act, the AO had charged section 68 of the Act on the cash gift money received by the assessee. It is pertinent