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The case addresses the taxability of cash withdrawn from sub-contractors' bank accounts by employees of a civil contractor engaged in infrastructure development.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

DCIT, Central Circle-18, Delhi vs. Ms Delhivery Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

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

ITA 2176/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit Vs. Ms Delhivery Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle – 18 N-24-N34, S-24-S-34, Air Delhi Cargo Logistics Centre-Ii, Opposite Gate 6 Cargo Terminal Igi Airport, South West, New Delhi-110037 Pan No.Aapcs9575E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. T. James Singson, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. K. M. Gupta, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 06/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/12/2023 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Preferred Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-27, New Delhi Dated 08.05.2023 Pertaining To A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :- 1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Right In Not Sustaining The Disallowance Of Deduction Claimed On Account Of Employee

Section 37(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

case, the Ld, CIT(A) is right in deleting the addition of Rs. 62.72.719/- on account of undisclosed income as per provision of Section 56(2)(vii) of the IT Act r.w.r 11UA, even when the assessee company did not get valuation report of shares from merchant banker or failed

Ramesh Mannava, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as mentioned herein above

ITA 252/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam01 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 252/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Mr. Ramesh Mannava, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 5-60-213/1, Msr Cotton Ward-2(1), Corporation, 4/4 Ashok Nagar, Guntur. Guntur, Andhra Pradesh-522007. Pan: Agdpm 8289 Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

duty value and the sale consideration of the immovable property [Rs. 33,34,000 – Rs. 18,34,000] by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

Sanjib Sudhir Pradhan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 15(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 932/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Mrs. Rituja Pawar Deswal a/wFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chogule

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

assessee has also submitted that the gifts are received from the mother, wife, and other relatives which are covered under Explanation (e) to section 56(2)(vii) of the Act, and thus the same is not taxable. However, it is pertinent to note that as per section ... creditor, which the assessee has failed to prove in case of certain transactions as noted above. Accordingly, mere reliance on Explanation (e) to section 56(2)(vii) of the Act would not absolve the assessee from the onus cast on him under section 68 of the Act. As a result

Sanjib Sudhir Pradhan, Mumbai vs. ITO, 15(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1503/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Mrs. Rituja Pawar Deswal a/wFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chogule

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

Shri Bhupinder Singh ( Prop) the Nest Hotels & Motels, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 250/ASR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250oSection 56(2)(vii)

faceless too has erred in not appreciating the fact that the transferer and transferee both were real brothers and provisions of section 56(2)(vii) were not applicable to the facts of the case. 5 That in the case of S. Kuldip Singh (brother) who is transferor, whose case ... upheld U/s 56(2)(vii) of the Actand appeal is partly allowed. The assessee had challenged the application of section 56(2)(vii) in case of transaction between real brother. But the ground of the assesseeis dismissed. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before

Shri Abdul Gaffar Shaikh Chand, Akola vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 23/NAG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.23/Nag/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Abdul Gaffar Shaikh The Principal Chand, Vs Commissioner Of Mohammad Ali Road, Income Tax, Phulary Galli, Nagpur – 1. Akola - 440002. Pan: Avxps7253H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2023

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

Stamp Duty Valuation Authority was Rs.31,05,000/-. The Assessing Officer(AO) during scrutiny proceedings had not verified applicability of section 56(2)(vii). Assessing Officer has merely accepted the returned income vide order under section 143(3) dated 28.09.2017 for A.Y. 2015-16. The ld.Principal Commissioner of Income ... carried out any enquiry regarding purchase of the impugned property by the assessee. The assessment order is silent on the issue. The section 56(2)(vii) is reproduced here as under : “56. (1) Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from the total income under this

Fakhruddin T Malik, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 21(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 2642/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Joginder Singh, Sr. DR

Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). 3. Before the CIT(A) the assessee raised grounds stating that the addition under section 56(2)(vii) could have been made without referring the matter to the DVO at the request of the assessee. However the assessee neither appeared in person

ITO, Ward-52(1), New Delhi vs. Arti Jindal, Delhi

ITA 1502/DEL/2021[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

till her lifetime, the transfer of shares to the Trust was nothing but an exercise to circumvent the provisions attracting taxation as per section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act in the hands of assessee. The assessee, being director of Glebe and having substantial shareholding d) (till transfer ... consideration to execute the assessee’s plan through usage of special purpose vehicles by circumventing the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, the so-called gift loose its character of gift but became an arrangement. The basis of such assertion gets fully

M/S. Riya Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 108/RPR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss) A No. 01/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Riya Real Estates Private Limited 308, 3Rd Floor, Ceejay House, Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Mumbai (Mh)-400 018 Pan : Aadcr8769B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 153DSection 250Section 56(2)(viia)

investments in the aforementioned shares at the face value, whereas their apparent value was substantially higher, the A.O., in light of provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act, directed it to furnish details as regards the rate at which shares were allotted vis-à-vis. their Fair Market ... Value (FMV) as of the date of allotment. In reply, it was claimed by the assessee that the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act were not applicable to the allotment of shares in its case. Elaborating on his aforesaid contention, it was the claim

Shri Bhadresh Ramniklal Nagda, Jamnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1), Jamnagar

In the result, ground number 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/RJT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 56

rival submission of both the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. We find that the ld.AO made addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) by taking view that a plain reading of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) made it clear that Sub-section and clause ... assessee that land purchased by the assessee is agricultural land falls within the exemption of capital asset under section 2(14) and section 56(2)(vii)(b) is not applicable, was not accepted by holding that he has already taken a contrary view in appeal no.CAS3 334/16-17 dated

Rekha Singh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 29(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2406/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhrekha Singh Vs. Ito 29(3)(2) F 1103, Sai Radha 307, 3Rd Floor, C-10, Complex, Lbs Marg, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Bhandup (W), Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai-400078 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Auxps8355F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh IyerFor Respondent: Shri. Ajay Singh

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

2 AY 2015-16 Rekha Singh 2. The Ld. CIT(Appeals ((NFAC) has erred in denying the benefit of Section 56(2)(vii) (b) by stating that Letter of Allotment is not a registered sale deed and thus cannot be considered as date of agreement. 3. The Ld. CIT(Appeals ... property, therefore, the AO was of the P a g e | 3 AY 2015-16 Rekha Singh view that provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the IT Act to be applied. On query the assessee explained that as per the proviso to section 56(2)(vii

Shri. James Kochappu Kolenchery, Canada vs. ACIT, International Taxation, Trivandrum

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 892/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasjames Kochapu Kolenchery Asst. Cit, International 563, Lombarde Ave Oshawa Taxation, Vs. Ontario, Canada Lij8Hs 999999 Thiruvananthapuram [Pan:Ekjpk3818P] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Smt. Divya Ravindran, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal Directed Against The Order Dated 13.05.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Bangalore [Cit(A)], Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting His Appeal Against Order Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 28.12.2019 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That The Appeal Is Delayed By 27 Days. As Explained In The Condonation Petition, Submitted Along With, In The Form Of An Affidavit By Shri Tony V.J., The Assessee’S, A Resident Of Canada, Constituted Attorney, The Impugned Order Was Received By The Assessee In Canada Only On 17.6.2022, Whereupon The Power Of Attorney Was Executed & The Papers Sent To India, Entailing Time & Which Led To The Delay In Preparation Of Appeal Papers & Filing Them. The Same Is Found Reasonable & Fairly Not Objected To By Smt. Devi, The Learned Sr. D.R. Hearing In The Matter Was Accordingly Proceeded With.

For Appellant: Smt. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial

Chandhok Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 200/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 200/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Chandhok Cold Storage Private Limited Ph No.100/28, Bilaspur Road, Ravigram S.O, Raipur-492 001 Pan : Aadcc8354P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 224Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Anwar Hussain Khan, Bulandshahr vs. ACIT, Circle, Bulandshahr

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 2955/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Shri Chandra Mohan Gargshri Anwar Hussain Khan Vs. Acit S/O. Shri Maqshood Circle Hussain, C/O. Royal Gas Bulandshahr Services, G.T. Road Khurja, Bulandshahr Pan No. Aamph 9619 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv. Revenue By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.10.2023

Section 56(2)(vii)

part of the closing stock, then the same would not fall in the ambit of the property as defined in explanation to section 56(2)(vii) of the Act and consequently the said provisions will not be applicable in the case of the assessee. 3. The Learned Counsel further drawing ... Counsel finally submitted that the AO was not justified in making additions in the hands of the assessee by invoking inapplicable provision of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act and Learned CIT(A) was also not justified in upholding the same. The Learned Counsel thus submitted that the addition

ITO, Ward, Phalodi vs. M/S Rama Allure LLP, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 135/JODH/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: The Date, The Appeal Is Finally Heard.”

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR VIRTUAL HEARING BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI

ACIT Circle-15(2), New Delhi vs. Lifestyle Probuild Pvt Ltd, Ghaziabad

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3552/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: AO; that valuation report dated 15.03.2012 prepared by the Chartered Accountant as per rule 11UA

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Jyoti Verma, Sr. DR

Section 56(2)(viib)

that ld. CIT (A) has passed a very reasonable and elaborate order. Furthermore, we find it appropriate to refer to the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and Rule 11UA as under :- 9 ITA No.3552/Del./2019 “Section 56(2) provides for addition in certain cases ... dated 22.03.2022 has appreciated the provisions of law as under :- “17. Now coming to the mandate of the Act, it is noted that section 56(2)(vii)(b) provides for addition in case of premium obtained from shares exceeds the fair market value of the shares. Fair market value

The DCIT, Circle-2(1), Thrissur vs. Sri.K.P. Johny, Thrissur

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate (with Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv. with him)For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 147Section 148(1)Section 69

their sale, and at a profit of 700% of cost; 9.8 Reference, at this stage is drawn to section 56(2)(vii) of the Act, which reads as under in its relevant part: - “56. (1) Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from …………. (2) In particular ... reduction of Rs.70.50 lakhs separately assessed u/s.69 of the Act, i.e., while assessing income u/s. 45 or, as the case may be, section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act; OR alternatively, no separate addition for rs. 70.50 lacs u/s. 69 is called for. (e) The assessee shall also explain

Sri.K.P. Johny, Thrissur vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1), Thrissur

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 206/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate (with Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv. with him)For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 147Section 148(1)Section 69

Dilip Talakshi Vora, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax-20, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1613/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdilip Talakshi Vora Vs. Principal Commissioner 3102, Spring Mills, Island Of Income Tax-20, City Centre, G.D. Room No. 418, 4 Th Floor, Ambekar Marg Near Piramal Chambers, Wadala Telephone Lal Baug, Parel, Exchange, Dadar (East) Mumbai - 400012 Mumbai – 400014 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabpv0804C Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Paresh Shaparia Respondent By : Riddhi Mishra Date Of Hearing 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 05.10.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit(A), Mumbai-20, Dated 24.03.2023 For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “I. Order Passed U/S 263 Is Bad In Law: 1. The Ld. Pr.Cit Erred On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case In Passing The Order U/S 263 Which Is Bad In Law. 2. The Ld Pr.Cit Erred In Passing The Order U/S 263 By Setting Aside Ao'S Order & Directing To Inquire Into The Claim Both In Terms Of Section 56(2)(X) & Section 43Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Ld Pr. Cit Erred In Treating The Order Passed By Ao. U/S 143(3) As Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue In Relation To Purchase Of Property I.E Flat No. E-601 At Ambe Shraddha Kamothe In Panvel (Herein Referred As Said Flat) For Applicability Of Section 56(2)(X) & Section 43Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: Riddhi Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43CSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

P a g e | 1 Dilip Talakshi Vora Vs. Pr.CIT-20 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Rakeshbhai Gemabhai Oad, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(5), Surat

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

ITA 510/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.510/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Rakeshbhai Gemabhai Oad, Vs. The Ito, 9, Purshottam Nagar Society, Ward-2(3)(5), Opp. Jalaram Petrol Pump, Amroli, Surat Surat – 394107, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaepo2316D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Bipin Jariwala, Advocate Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29/09/2023

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

passed ex parte order. The Ld. Counsel also contended that the issue involved in assessee’s case was relating to the Provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act wherein the Assessing Officer has made the addition on account of difference between registered value and the value ... section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel contended that Assessing Officer has not made reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer for determining the value of the property afresh, therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that matter may be remitted back to the file the Assessing Officer for fresh