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The case addresses the taxability of cash withdrawn from sub-contractors' bank accounts by employees of a civil contractor engaged in infrastructure development.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

Meena Arjun Narang, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 27(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6651/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by

Section 147Section 56(2)(x)

various decisions of ITAT, Mumbai that Stamp Duty Valuation as on date of allotment letter should be considered for purposes of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. We consider that the respective allotment letters issued to the assessee should be considered as "Agreement to sell" for the purpose

Himanshu Kukreja, Dehradun vs. ITO, Dehradun

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 147/DDN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Himanshu Kukreja Vs Income Tax Officer Matta Garg & Co. Ca 15- Income Tax Office, 13-A, Astley Hall, Dehradun, Subhash Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakjhand Pan:Ahipk9462F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. K. Matta, Ca Revenue By Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2025

Section 13(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

Kulwant Kukreja Education Society, Dehradun, found that, the properties in question have been purchased by the Assessee without consideration.Therefore, applied the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) Act against the Assessee and made addition of Rs. 8,64,15,000/-. 7. During the appellate proceeding ... clear that 6 Himanshu Kukreja Vs. ITO properties in question have been purchased by the assessee without consideration and, therefore, provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) are attracted. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 8,64,15,000/-, being actual sale consideration and stamp duty paid in respect of immovable

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Surat, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate vs. Royal Developers, Nr. Ip Mission School, Muglisa

ITA 860/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Suresh K KabraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH “DB” SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Sh. Amrish Singh, Sirsa vs. ACIT/DCIT- Int. Tax, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 590/CHANDI/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Karan Jeet Singh, Vs. Dcit/Acit, 1, Hisar Road, Vpo- Intl. Taxation, Khairpur, Ward-4, Sirsa, Gurgaon Haryana Pan: Acgps7292E (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Kabal Jeet Singh, Vs. Dcit/Acit, 1, Hisar Road, Vpo- Intl. Taxation, Khairpur, Ward-4, Sirsa, Gurgaon Haryana Pan: Acgps7934M (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.390/Chandi/2021 & 590/Chandi/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shri Amrish Singh, Vs. Dcit/Acit, 1, Hisar Road, Vpo- Intl. Taxation, Khairpur, Ward-4, Sirsa, Gurgaon Haryana Pan: Aszps6911K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Lalit Mohan, Adv. Sh. Ankit Kumar, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(vii)

amounting to Rs.89,16,548/-, Rs.89,16,548/-, Rs.1,69,63,466/- and Rs.39,46,904/-, appeal-wise, respectively, taxed under section 56(2)(vii) r.w.s. 57(iv) of the Act in the lower proceedings. 3. The Revenue vehemently argues in this factual backdrop that various judicial precedents, including Mahender

Shri Kabal Jeet Singh, Sirsa vs. DCIT/ACIT-Int.-Tax, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 424/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(vii)

Shri Karan Jeet Singh, Sirsa vs. DCIT/ACIT- Int.Tax, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 391/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(vii)

Sh. Amrish Singh, Sirsa vs. DCIT/ACIT, Int. Tax., Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 390/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(vii)

Urusi Rahman, Kadma vs. ITO, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 257/RAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.257/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Urusi Rahman….... …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 88 New Rani Kodar, Line No.4, Po Kadma, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand- 831005. [Pan: Amxpr0867K] Vs. Ito, Jsr…..……………….....….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 18, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 27.05.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Did Not File Any Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017–18. Subsequently, The Case Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 On The Basis Of Information Received By The Assessing Officer That The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property For A Declared Consideration Of ₹10,00,000, Whereas The Value Adopted For Stamp Duty Purposes Was ₹25,75,000. It Was Alleged That The Provisions Of Section 56(2)(Vii)(B) Of The Act Were Applicable. Accordingly, Notice Under Section 133(6) Was Issued Calling Upon The Assessee To Explain The Reasons For Not Filing The Return Of Income & To Furnish Details Regarding The Purchase Of The Property. However, There Was No Compliance By The Assessee. Thereafter, Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act Was Issued After Obtaining The Requisite Prior Approval From The Competent Authority. During The Course

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

whereas the value adopted for stamp duty purposes was ₹25,75,000. It was alleged that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act were applicable. Accordingly, notice under section 133(6) was issued calling upon the assessee to explain the reasons for not filing the return ... Consequently, the assessment was completed ex parte. The Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹15,75,000 as income from other sources under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, being the difference between the stamp duty value and the declared purchase consideration. Further, an addition

Raghavendra Ramakrishna Naik, Mumbai vs. ITO Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2027/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Raghavendra Ramakrishna Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Naik 3(3)(1), Mumbai Raghavendra Ramakrishna Room No. 626, 6Th Floor, Naik D-1, Flat No. 7, Navyouak Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, Society, Bhandup East, G Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai 400042 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051 Pan: (Afapn9077M) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Ms. Manisha Thakkar, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By Ld. Ito (Intl. Tax) Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai-3 Vide Order No. Itba/Com/F/17/2024-25/1072645237(1) Dated 28.01.2025 Passed Pursuant To The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 02.12.2024 For Ay 2016-17. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. The Applicant States That The Learned Income Tax Officer Has Erred In Passing The Order Which Is Illegal, Arbitrary & Against The Principle Laid

For Appellant: Ms. Manisha Thakkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

same as a part purchase consideration for the purchase of the said flat and disregarding the Provisions of proviso to the section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act 3. On the Facts and Circumstances of the case, The DRP/ Ld. AO erred both on facts ... confirming the addition of Rs. 18,95,000/- disregarding the Proviso to Section 56(2)(vii) (b)(ii)of the Act, which stipulates that where the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer/ purchase of immovable property (date of allotment 29.09.2010) and the date

Ketan Himatlal Mehta, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. NFAC, Not Applicable

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2499/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 32MSection 56(2)(x)

view of the amendment by the Finance Act, 2010 wherein the expression property has been defined in clause (d) of the Explanation below section 56(2)(vii) clarifying that with effect from 01.04.2009, the property would only include capital assets is misplaced as the amendment solely dealt with the issues ... trade, the profits of which are taxable under specific head of income. Therefore, the definition of property has been amended to provide that section 56(2)(vii) will have application to the „property‟ which is in the suture of a capital asset of the recipient and therefore would not apply

Himmatbhai Madhabhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1552/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalhimmatbhai M. Patel, Vs. Ito, 18, Kailash Dham Part-2, Ward 5(3)(1), India Colony Road, Bapunagar, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380024 [Pan :Aanpd 2497 D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divetia & Shri Samir Vora, Ars Respondent By: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia & Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

ground nos. 1 to 4, therefore, ground Nos. 1 to 4 are decided against the assessee. “ 4. In this background, the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act are examined. The same reads as under:- (x) where any person receives, in any previous year, from any person