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The case addresses the taxability of cash withdrawn from sub-contractors' bank accounts by employees of a civil contractor engaged in infrastructure development.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

Laxman Kanaiyalal Dharmani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(2)(6), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5675/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan Kakkad, AR

Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A) the assessee also raised the legal contention that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)/(x) which existed on the date of agreement i.e. 23.10.2010 does not provide for additions to be made for "inadequate consideration" and therefore ... cash on or before the date of the agreement for the transfer of such immovable property." 7.2 From the above, we note that section 56(2)(vii) was originally introduced in ted statute book w.e.f. 1-10-2009 which was not in existence when the impugned agreement 56(2

Archana Muralidhar Bhandwalkar, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(2), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1840/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 151ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

151A of the Act. 2. The Id CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.5,57,760/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) being deemed income on the ground that agreement value is less than the stamp duty value. The addition so made be deleted ... failed to appreciate that the Rs.5,57,760/- did not represent deemed income being the transaction covered by the provision to section 56(2)(vii)(b) and between the two real sisters (relatives). The addition so made be deleted. The appellant be granted just and proper relief

Archana Muralidhar Bhandwalkar, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1615/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 14Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 151ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(vii)

Awadhnarayan Bhagwanta Singh, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6045/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & And Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (SR DR)

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

being the difference between the stated consideration and the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority, by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The assessee, being aggrieved, preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal ... applicability of section 115BBE, the Ld. CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee; however, the addition of Rs.59,87,000/- made under section 56(2)(vii) was upheld. The assessee has now filed the present appeal before us. 3. The Ld. AR appeared and filed a paper book containing pages

Dilip Dhirajlal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 24(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5168/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt.Renu Jauhri7 (A.Y.2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar RajpurohitFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri- Sr. AR

Section 147Section 2(47)Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

reopened u/s. 147 of the Act for the reason the income of Rs. 25,39,000/- had escaped assessment in view of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that it had booked under-construction an office premises in the project known ... appeal of the assessee was dismissed by ld. CIT(A) with the following observations: “5.5 With regard to applicability of section 56(2)(vii) (b), even though the property was agreed for sale in the FY 2009-10, the registration of the property was made

Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 384/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.384/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16) Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi Vs. Assistant Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Pan: Agfpg8929H Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Hybrid Hearing) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 26/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 28/02/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 16/03/2022 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

lakhs and the sale consideration disclosed by the assessee of Rs.20 lakhs, i.e., 18.90 lakhs as income under the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO vide his order passed under section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act, dated 16/03/2022 determined the income ... Besides the difference amount in the above case is Rs. 18,90,000/- which is exceeding Rs. 50,000/-. Thus, the provisions of section 56 (2)(vii)(b) of the Act are squarely applicable in the case of the appellant. Although the appellant had contended the addition, no specific submissions/documents

Munirabai Mohammadi Kalolwala, Panchmahal vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1433/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

purchased immoveable consideration below jantry value determined as per Stamp Valuation Authority by amount exceeding Rs. 50,000/- which is in contravention to section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Assessment was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act and notice u/s. 148 was issued on 28-03-2019. Notice

Delight Propcon Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1267/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.M/S Delight Propcon Private Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Limited Shop No. 68, Building Income Tax, No. 38, Surya House, Near Central Circle-Ii, New Cgo Pnb Devil Road, Khanpur, Complex, N. H. Iv, Nit New Delhi Faridabad, Haryana-121001 Pan: Aadcd6203E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By Sh. Suman Malik, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025 Order

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 68

invoked as the said section is applicable in the case of seller of the property only while the appellant is a buyer. Section 56(2)(vii)(a) and Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act are also not applicable in case of partnership firm or LLP and the assessee

Anand Arunraj, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp. Cirlce-5(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1348/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Gautam S. Mukundan, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एबी ट

ACIT, Chennai vs. Updater Services Limited, Chennai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by both the assessee and the Revenue, as well as the grounds raised in the cross-objections filed by the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical...

ITA 1616/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1339 /Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Updater Services Limited (Formerly Dcit, Known As Updater Services Private Vs. Central Circle -2(3), Limited), No.2/302-A, Uds Salai, Chennai. Off Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. [Pan:Aaacu-6845-J] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. K. Prasanna, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T

Section 115QSection 250Section 263Section 391Section 77A

chargeable to tax if such difference exceeds INR 50,000. • The term 'property' has been exhaustively defined in clause (d) of Explanation to Section 56(2)(vii). The relevant extracts of the same is produced below: • “……Property means the following capital asset of the assessee, namely: (i) Immovable property being ... securities • From the above definition it is clear that for shares and securities to fall within the ambit of property as defined under Section 56(2)(vii), they must constitute a "capital asset" in the hands of the person receiving such shares. • It is a well settled position that shares

M/S. Updater Services Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Chennai

ITA 1339/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. K. Prasanna, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T

Section 115QSection 250Section 263Section 391Section 77A

Anil Pannalal Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai

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

ITA 4663/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 17Section 250Section 53ASection 56(2)(x)

rather than the assessee's contentions. The Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in this case specifically dealt with similar facts and held that for section 56(2)(vii) (b) purposes, the date of execution of the registered agreement should be considered, not the date of allotment letter. it was held that ... ITAT dismissed the assessee's appeal in that case, confirming that allotment letters cannot be treated as transfer documents for the purpose of section 56(2)(vii)(b). iv. Applicability of CBDT Circulars The assessee has relied upon CBDT Circulars No. 471 dated 15.10.1986 and No. 672 dated 16.12.1993. However

ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Sikander Daredia, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 604/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.604/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2018-2019 The Asst. Commissioner Of Sikander Daredia, Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad – 500 014. Vs. Hyderabad – 500 004. Pan Agtpd5466A (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By : Sri S. Rama Rao, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12.11.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

Nilesh Ishwar Mehta, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4931/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarnilesh Ishwar Mehta V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of 2301/A, 23Rd Floor, बनाम Income Tax-17(1) Parthenon Building, J.P. Room No. 117, Kautilya Road, Mumbai – 400 053, Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Maharashtra Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacpm2417P Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.AR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 56(2)(vii)

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 1977000 under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred ... respect of an immovable property purchased for a consideration which was less than stamp duty value in terms of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act.The basic contentions raised before the ld.CIT(A) was that the amended provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(iii) introduced from

M/S. Ambattur Developers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-1(1), Chennai

ITA 2601/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2601/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Ambattur Developers Private Limited, (Amalgamated With Ambattur Hotels Private Limited) No. 86/E2, Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai - 600 058. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaeca-7490-D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Corporate Ward- 1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : Shri. Bipin, C.N., Cit सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025 : 11.11.2025 आदेश /Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Nfac, Delhi, (In Short Ld.Cit(A)) For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Vide Order Dated 12.08.2024. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: :-2-:

For Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

contrary to law, facts and in the circumstances of the case. 2) The CIT(A) NFAC erred in confirming the addition made under section 56(2)(vii)(b) to the extent of Rs.72,69,89,420/- in respect of shares allotted at a premium of 1,767/- per share ... ascertain whether the AO has alleged or proved that unaccounted money is infused for investment in shares to decide the applicability of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 8. The Ld.AR submitted that during the subject A.Y., the shares were offered and issued only to existing shareholders

ACIT, Circle-3(1), Gurugram vs. Sunil Kumar, Gurugram

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 68

that it represented outstanding liability for many preceding assessment years. Rejected accordingly. 6. The Revenue’s third substantive ground herein seeking to revive section 56(2)(vii)(a) addition of Rs.6 lakhs also meets same fate since the assessee has all along proved the same to have been received from

DCIT, Circle 4(2), New Delhi vs. Blue Jay Finlease Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4416/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Blue Jay Finlease Pvt. Ltd, Dcit, Circle-4(2), 26, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi Delhi-110001 Pan: Aaacb5215H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rajesh Bansal, Ca Department By Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr

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

/NFAC’s detailed discussion reversing the Assessing Officer’s action inter alia making various additions of difference in Form 26AS, share premium under section 56(2)(vii)(b) and unexplained cash credits amounting to Rs.5,99,79,491/-; respectively, reading as under: “3. Ground No 4 is raised against addition

Arvind Nandagopal, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2274/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Section 131Section 132

erred in confirming the addition made by Ld. Assessing officer amounting to Rs.1,54,58,427/-made under Section 56(2) (vii) of the Act [which was later changed to Section 56(2 ... failed to appreciate the fact that the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in making the addition under Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act [later changed to Sec. 56(2)(x) by Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2017-18 & AY 2018-19], without specifying in the 'Show Cause Notice,' the section

Arvind Nandagopal, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2273/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Respondent: Mr.M. Murali, CIT

Section 131Section 132

Arvind Nandagopal, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2272/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Respondent: Mr.M. Murali, CIT

Section 131Section 132