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The case addresses the taxability of cash withdrawn from sub-contractors' bank accounts by employees of a civil contractor engaged in infrastructure development.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

Jarul Glasswork Private Limited, Haryana vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Faridabad

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

ITA 83/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Ms. Sumangla Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(2)Section 251(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

appellate proceedings along with Section 68 of the Act. As against Section 68 invoked by the Assessing Officer, the invocation of provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) alongside, for charging premium of Rs.20 per share on share issued has however been made on protective basis which is not permissible

Bhawna Bafna, Jagdalpur, Bastar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Jagdalpur, Bastar

ITA 250/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Bhawna Bafna Vs The Income Tax Officer C/O. Shri Rekhchand Bafna, Jagdalpur Gurudwara Road, Moti Talab Para, Chhattisgarh-494 001 Pan: Amipb4641C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

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

facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.8,19,725/- made by AO invoking section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) The addition made by AO and sustained by Ld. CIT (A) is arbitrary, baseless and not justified. 2. In the facts circumstances

Shri Ravi Ramakrishnan, Mumbai vs. International Tax Ward 4(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid directions

ITA 646/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.646/मुं/2023 (िन.व.2014-15) Ravi Ramakrishnan, 205/404, Khar Rose Minar Building, 4Th Floor, 10Th Road, Khar (West, Mumbai 400 052 Pan: Anwpr-2793-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. International Tax Ward 4(1)(1), Room No.1729, 17Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Anushree Gupta "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Anil Sant सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/09/2023 आदेश आदेश/ Order आदेश आदेश Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 10/01/2023 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short ‘The Act], For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds In Appeal: “ The Following Grounds Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In The Law, The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer ('Ld. Ao') Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) / Directions Passed By The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp') Under 2 Section 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act1) Is Bad, Both In The Eye Of Law & On The Facts On Account Of:

For Appellant: Ms. Anushree GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant

Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

erred in confirming the variation proposed by the Ld. AO amounting to Rs.45,62,270 under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act as income from other sources and has also erred in invoking the amended provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act for years

Clearmedi Healthcare Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 6(1), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed for

ITA 2221/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV

Shyam Sunder Bhaeti, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Jodhpur

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 57/JODH/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 (Through Virtual Mode) Late Sh. Shyam Sunder Bhaeti, Versus Income-Tax Officer, Through L/H. Ram Kishore Bhaeti Ward-1(4),Jodhpur. 122 C, Krishna Mandir Road, Subhash Chowk, Ratanada, Jodhpur. Pan: Aiopb9503H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Divya Phophalia, C.A. Revenue By : Sh. Rajeev Mohan, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.09.2023

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Phophalia, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Mohan, JCIT-DR

Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

only dispute in the present appeal is with regard to addition of an amount of Rs.4,65,187/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Briefly, the facts are, the deceased assessee was a resident individual. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee ... difference in value as per the declared sale consideration and as determined by stamp duty authority has to be treated as income under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Though, the assessee objected to the proposed addition, however, rejecting the objection of the assessee, the Assessing Officer added

Rhythm Polymers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT Delhi-7, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 423/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

lower than the stamp duty value, the explanation of the assessee was not acceptable to him in the light of provisions contained in section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The Ld. PCIT therefore, applying Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act held the impugned assessment as erroneous ... examine the issue of purchase of property for a consideration lower than the stamp duty value in the light of the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto

Saleem Ahmed Khan, Boon Electronic, Corporation Market Naudara Bridge, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal in ITA No 88/Jab/2022 is not maintainable, ITA

ITA 88/JAB/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur14 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri H.S Modh, Advocate,ARFor Respondent: Shri.Rajesh Kumar Gupta, CIT-DR

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

disputed issue as envisaged by the Ld. AR that the CIT(A) was erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.35.28 lakhs under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act irrespective of the fact that the assessee has made payments for purchase of property through account payee cheques

Anshika Kumar, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7298/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaanshika Kumar Vs. Dcit, 248, Gujranwala Town, Central Circle-3, Part-3, First Floor, New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 153ASection 155Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

relevant findings given in the impugned order. In so far as addition of Rs 22,60,000 after invoking the deeming provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act, the assessee's case has been that the said property in question was occupied by her husband late

Rohitabh Soni, Kota vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Kota

ITA 349/JPR/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Sept 2023AY 2014-2015

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

For Appellant: Sh. Saurabh Harsh (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

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

circumstances of the case the learned lower authorities grossly erred in making an addition of Rs. 86,80,096/ under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the I.T. Act on account of suppression of purchase price of land in the hands of the assessee appellant. 3. That the learned

Sunder Lal, Rewari vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Gurgaon

ITA 1594/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Ishwar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 250

Therefore, an amount of Rs. 8,36,000/- is being added to the total income of the assessee as per the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 14. This finding has been affirmed by the ld.CIT(A) and sustained the said addition ... ground that the addition is sustainable as per the provisions of section 56 (2)(vii)(b) of the Act. It is the contention of the assessee that the official circle rate downloaded from the website of the Office

Sunder Lal, Rewari vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Gurgaon

ITA 1593/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Ishwar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 250

DCIT Circle - 16(1), New Delhi vs. Aruna Chandhok, New Delhi

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA 387/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit, Vs. Smt Aruna Chandhok, Circle-16(1), H-30, Sainik Farms, New Delhi Delhi-110062 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaepc7861R

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 55(2)(aa)Section 56(2)(vii)

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in holding that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act would not apply to bonus shares.” 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find ... made in respect of these bonus shares and bonus units. The assessee vide her submissions dated 04/01/2019 submitted that provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c ) of the Act would not apply to bonus shares at all as it is merely done by capitalization of profits. The value

Income Tax Dept., 24(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Gitika Ganesh Sane, Mumbai

ITA 1088/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 255(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

referred to Hon'ble Third Member for his decision: - "On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, whether the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act is attracted to the impugned transaction of purchase of immovable property and the addition made thereunder by the Assessing ... following draft question after detailed discussion and deliberation. “On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, whether the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act is attracted to the impugned transaction of purchase of immovable property and the addition made thereunder by the Assessing Officer

Ashutosh Sinha, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 643/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

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

shareholder in the property, therefore, amount of Rs.1,09,37,003/- is taxable in the hands of the assessee as per Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii). 3.1 During the course of assessment proceedings AO noted that the entire payment for the purchases of the property at Villa 3 Shri ... case of disagreement. The ld. AO held that the contention of the assessee cannot be accepted because the provision of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) is very clear that the actual consideration for a property cannot be less than its stamp duty value. Thus, he held that assessee’s case

Shree Navkar Realinfra Private Limited, Bhilwara vs. PCIT, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 133/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of This Appeal.”

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

offer as regard the issue of disproportionate allotment of shares. Hence, necessary action is called for in view of the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) / 56(2)(viia). Further, also no explanation has been offered as regard the point No. 5 as per this office notice for hearing dated

Elvis Zepherin Crasto, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Int Tax Ward 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1921/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleelvis Zepherin Crasto V. Income Tax Officer Gorai Village, Jui Pada International Taxation Gorai Essel World Road Ward – 2(1)(1) Borivali (W), Mumbai - 400091 Room No. 1724, 17Th Floor Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Asgpc6280N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)Section 56(2)Section 69

hands of the seller while Section 56 (2)(x) specifies the taxability of such transactions in the hands of the buyer. Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of Income Tax Act provides that where an individual or a Hindu undivided family receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons

Yesha Dhirajlal Thakrar, Rajkot vs. The DCIT, NFAC Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 75/RJT/2023[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot18 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) From Penalty Order Dated 29.01.2022 (Din: Itba/Pnl/F/271(1)(B)/2021-22/1039193062(1)) Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer,Nfac, Delhi(Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(B) Of The 1961 Act Levying Penalty Of Rs. 30,000/- Against The Assesse For Non Compliance Of Three Notices Dated 27.07.2021, 06.08.2021 & 16.08.2021 Issued During Reassessment Proceedings , All Three Aforesaid Notices U/S 142(1) Of The 1961 Act. The Proceedings Were Conducted Before Division Bench Through E-Court Through Virtual Hearing Mode.

For Appellant: Shri R D Lalchandani,AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A.K.Pandey, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271BSection 56(2)(vii)

Yesha Dhirjla Thakarar v. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Assessment Year : 2013-14 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH

Smt. Mumtajbanu A. Jivani, Amreli vs. The ITO, Ward-3 (1) (4), Amreli

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 284/RJT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 269USection 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

solitary issue in the present appeal relates to the addition to the income of the assessee in terms of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act amounting to Rs. 55,91,837/-, being the amount by which an immoveable property purchased by the assessee fell short of its stamp ... property adopted for stamp duty valuation, he treated the difference of Rs. 1,11,83,673/- as income in terms of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The assessee’s share in the property being 50%, addition of 50% of the difference

Shri Shailesh Mohanbhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(4), Surat

ITA 315/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.315/Srt/2023 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Shailesh Mohanbhai Patel Income Tax Officer, At & Po: Sarsana, Khajod, Ward-2(3)(4), Surat, Vs Surat-395007 Aayakar Bhavan, Room Pan No: Aqapp 7701 P No.613, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

Officer passed the assessment order without giving opportunity to assessee and passed assessment order by making addition of Rs.4,43,3,66/- under section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. The addition was made on account of difference in sale consideration paid by assessee on purchase of plots of lands ... file of Assessing Officer to give assessee fair and reasonable opportunity for de novo assessment order on the issue of addition under section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. 4. On the other hand, learned departmental representative (Ld. Sr-DR) for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Narendra Gehlaut, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed e appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1101/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Dy. Cit, Central Circle-6(4), Shri Narendra Gehlaut, Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Air 875, Sector – 17B, Gurgaon, India Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Haryana, 122 001. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aazpg 9630 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. K. GopalFor Respondent: Mr. Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR

falling under the provisions o and taxable as income falling under the provisions o and taxable as income falling under the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. (e) The Assessing Officer also held the cash found at the The Assessing