“section 56(2)(vii)”

Swapnal Subhash Anbhavane, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

with evidences called for, the Assessing Officer has erred on facts and in law in making an addition of Rs.47,74,681/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in contravention of the provisions of the said section, wherein, the Agreement for the purchase ... circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer has erred on facts and in law in making the addition of Rs.47,74,681/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 under the premise that the Appellant has failed to prove that the entire consideration was paid

Nilesh Pravinchandra Doshi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(1)(3), Mumbai, Maharashtra

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarnilesh Pravinchandra Ito Ward 42(1)(3), Doshi Kautilya Bhavan, B/29, Pushpanjali Vs. Bandra Kurla Building, Jambli Gully, Complex, Bandra Borivali West, Mumbai- East, 400 092 Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Amcpd6391D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Jay Shah, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.01.2026

same income as originally returned. 3. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made the following additions: 1. Rs. 1,26,730/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) on account of difference between stamp duty valuation and agreement value of immovable property. 2. Rs. 7,401/- on account of difference ... reiterated the facts and placed reliance on the ground-wise explanation furnished in the paper book. It was submitted that the addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) has been made solely on account of difference 5 Nilesh Pravinchandra Doshi between the agreement value and the stamp duty valuation

Sarayu Krishna Kamat, Piramal Chamber vs. DCIT Circle 22(1), Piramal Chamber Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

revenue authorities. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and examined the documents available on record. A plain reading of the proviso to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act reveals the following: “56(2)(vii) ………………………… (b) Any immovable property,— (i) Without consideration, if the stamp duty value exceeds ... valuation of the property was Rs.4.19 crore, which is lower than the actual cost of acquisition. In view of the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, where the consideration has been paid through banking channels and the allotment has taken place in an earlier year

Jagmeet Singh Sabharwal, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

third proviso of section 50C(1) providing exception in case of difference in value is less than 10% would be applicable to section 56(2)(vii)(b) has been discussed at length including the amendment brought in by the Finance Act 2018 and it has been held that section 56 ... construed alongwith sections 50C, 56(2)(x) and 43CA and the exceptions provided in the later three provisions have to be read _ into section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) to provide true meaning to the intention of the legislature and it has been held that the assessee would be eligible

Rekha Kishore Shah (Legal Heir of Kishor Dhirajlal Shah ), Mumbai vs. ACIT-42(1)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

whereas the agreement of sale and registration was done on 31-03-2017. Thus the learned AO erred in applying the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) (b) to AY 2017-18 instead in AY 2012-13 without appreciating the proviso to the said section. Thus additions made