← All Phrases

“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
69
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
39
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
24
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
24
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The case addresses the taxability of cash withdrawn from sub-contractors' bank accounts by employees of a civil contractor engaged in infrastructure development.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
23
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
21
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
21
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)

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

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

ITA 2271/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Respondent: Mr.M. Murali, CIT
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 2270/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Respondent: Mr.M. Murali, CIT
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

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

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

ITA 2269/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Respondent: Mr.M. Murali, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ernakulam, Kochi vs. Ansa Thomas, Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue stand partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 629/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Stephen GeorgeFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 56(2)(vii)

629/C/2025 & CO 6&7/C/2025 Ansa Thomas CIT(A) ought to have confirmed the addition by invoking the correct provisions of law, i.e. section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee submits the CIT(A) rightly deleted the additions made

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ernakulam vs. Ansa Thomas, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue stand partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 628/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Stephen GeorgeFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 56(2)(vii)

629/C/2025 & CO 6&7/C/2025 Ansa Thomas CIT(A) ought to have confirmed the addition by invoking the correct provisions of law, i.e. section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee submits the CIT(A) rightly deleted the additions made

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Pune vs. Sanghvi Beauty and Technologies Private Limited, Pune

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue as well

ITA 2120/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Respondent: "1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 56(2)(x)

facts and the submission made by the appellant. In this case, the Ld. AO made an addition of Rs.56,58,16,902/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) towards the premium received from Wipro-Enterprise Limited(Wipro) and Ascent Private Equity Trust(Ascent). The details of shares and the valuation ... clear whether the valuer has considered the same at all. 6.3 The appellant has argued that the first proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) expressly exempts the amounts received by a Venture Capital Undertaking(VCU) from an Alternative Investment Fund(AIF), towards issue of shares, from the applicability

Seema Sureka, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(3), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2682/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) : (I) Misc. Receipts Of Rs.96,000/- In Cash Shown As Gifts Received & Offered To Tax; (Ii) Receipt Of A Gift Of Rs. 5,84,000/- From An Huf, Claimed As Exempt U/S 56(2) Of The Act; & (Iii) Receipts Of Rs.2,99,133/- Shown As Profit From Commodity Trading, Albeit On Off-Market Basis.

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

2) (2), Ahmedabad reported in [2018] 93 taxmann.com 144 wherein it is held that the legislature substituted clause (e) to Explanation in Section 56(2)(vii) defining the term of "relative" to be applicable in case of an individual assessee as well as HUF; with retrospective effect from ... Ahmd), AY 2012-13], as this decision has been relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) to hold that in Explanation to section 56(2)(vii) of the Act "relative" has been clearly defined and HUF is not specifically mentioned thereby as a donor, rather only as a donee

Deb Prasanna Choudhury, Kolkata vs. ADIT/DCIT (It) - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2199/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Silgate Solutions Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5367/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: or at the time of hearing of the matter with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal." 2. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of international call centre. The assessee filed a return of income for AY 2013-14 on 24.10.2013, declaring total income of Rs.92,36,060/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings the AO noticed that there was change in the shareholding pattern of the assessee wherein the ass

For Appellant: Shri. SwapnilChoudhary Sr. AR
Section 234ASection 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viia)

memorandum explaining the provisions in the Finance Bill. 2010 (2010)(32) ITR 110), which is extracted below:-- "B. The provisions of section 56(2)(vii) were introduced as a counter evasion mechanism to prevent Laundering of unaccounted income under the garb of gifts, particularly after abolition of the Gift ... which are taxable under specific head of income. It is, therefore, proposed to amend the definition of property so as to provide that section 56(2)(vii) will have application to the "property" 7 Silgate Solutions limited which is in the nature of a capital asset of the recipient

Kunal Rajendra Mashru, Mumbai vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Junagadh

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 387/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.387/Rjt/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kunal Rajendra Mashru C/O. Pradip Corporation, D-3, Jeevan Jyot, Cawasji Patel Street, Mumbai – 400001, Maharashtra Pan : Afhpm1835K (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Circle-1, Junagadh : (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Choksy, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2025 Order Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha: Captioned Appeal Filed By Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal), Addl/Jcit(A)-3, Chennai (In Short 'Cit(A)'), Dated 29.05.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 07.11.2019.

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Choksy, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.DR
Section 10(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

nothing but a group of relatives and any gift received from a relative / group of relatives is excluded from the purview of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. 2.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in not appreciating the alternative contention of the appellant

Sejal Milan Vora, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4708/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Jigar MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Pushkaraj Bhangepatil, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

revised return on 31.03.2019 thereby declaring income of Rs.12,11,380/-, wherein I had disclosed income of Rs. 8,27,000/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 2. Subsequently, my case was reopened vide issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act and concluded vide assessment order

Shilpaben Hiteshbhai Sakaria, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2)(6), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 686/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Shilpaben Hiteshbhai Sakaria, Ito-1(2)(6), 17, Hetal Nagar Society, Near Income Tax Office, Anavil Navyug Collage, Rander Road, Vs. Business Business Centre, Surat-395005. Adajan Hazira Road, Adajan, Surat-395007. Pan No. Aqqps 4288 Q Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Himanshu Gandhi, CA
Section 234ASection 270ASection 56(2)(vii)

Ground 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.1410000 under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) on Income Tax Act, 1961 Shilpaben Hiteshbhai Sakaria 2 Shilpaben Hiteshbhai Sakaria Ground 2. On the facts and circumstances ... agreement fixing date will be considered for the purpose of as on agreement fixing date will be considered for the purpose of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) which is below the purchase consideration. section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) which is below the purchase consideration. section 56(2)(vii

Vikas Ratanlal Jain, Aurangabad vs. CIT(A), Aurangabad

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

ITA 648/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.648/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vikas Ratanlal Jain, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Plot No.32, Station Road, Aurangabad. Vedant Nagar, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Afapj5847B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nandkishor S. Daga & Shri Nitesh N. Daga Revenue By : Shri Shashank Ojha Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.01.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “01. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ctt(A) Along With The Learned Ao Has Erred In Contending That Provisions Of S. 56(2)(Vii)(B) Is Applicable To All The Immovable Properties Even If Such Land Is Considered As Stock In Trade. As Mentioned In The Explanation To The Aforesaid Section, Property Means The ‘Capital Asset’ Of The Assessee & Hence If Land Is Considered As Stock In Trade, Provisions Of Such 2 Section Are Not Applicable To Such Purchase. Reliance Is Placed On The Various Judicial Precedents Wherein It Has Been Held That The Provisions Of S. 56(2)(Vii)(B) Are Not Applicable To Stock In Trade But Is Applicable Only To Capital Assets:  Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Ashok Agarwal (Huf)

For Appellant: Shri Nandkishor S. Daga &For Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

purchase value and stamp duty value was required to be added in the hands of the assessee in the light of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, Ld. PCIT initiated proceedings u/s 263 of the Act and the assessment order dated 13.12.2016 was declared as erroneous ... Revenue and the assessment order was set-aside to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine afresh in the light of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and reframe the assessment order after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Vide order dated 30.08.2019, the Assessing

Ram Ji Lal Meena, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Holding Additional Charge of ITO, Ward 6(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 419/JPR/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 151Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

growly erred in making an addition under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") without making a corresponding addition under Section 56(2)(vii) in the hands of the buyer, thereby violating the principles of consistency, equality, and fairness in taxation. The Ld. AO has further failed ... appreciate that the impugned addition under Section 50C is not sustainable without corresponding adjustment on the buyer's side under Section 56(2)(vii), which is contrary to established judicial precedents recognizing that both parties to a transaction must be assessed consistently.’’ 2.1 None appeared on behalf of the assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Mytrah Vayu (Gujarat) Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 690/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT.DRFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Bharadwaj V & Shri
Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

premium of Rs.40/- per share. The AO found the assessee to have not justified the premium received and accordingly invoked the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act for making addition of excess amount received in comparison to the Fair Market Value (‘FMV’) of the shares

Gaurav Tiwari, Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Gurugram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1695/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.1695/िद"ी/2025 (िन.व. 2015-16) Gaurav Tiwari, 1401, Tower-6, Unitech Horizon, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Sector-Pi, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201301 Pan: Aezpt-4925-L बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 1(1), Gurugram, Haryana 122016 अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant By : S/Shri Ajay Goyal & Mudit Dewan, Advocates "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 27/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.01.2025, For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Shri Ajay Goyal, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That The Assessment For Ay 2015-16 Was Reopened For The Reason:- (I) The Assessee Had Purchased Immovable Property Worth Rs.55,04,000/- During Financial Year 2014-15;

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Goyal & Mudit Dewan, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 56(2)(vii)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िद"ी "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Savegenie E-Marketing Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Gurgoan

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

ITA 3847/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

assessee had, during the course of assessment proceedings, submitted that the valuation for allotment of equity shares was made as per Section 56(2)(vii)(b) read with sub-rule (2) of Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Act on Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method on the basis

Nkc Projects Private Limited, Jaipur vs. PCIT Delhi-4, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2804/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

section 263 of Act and whether he could have set aside the assessment on the ground that the assessing officer did not invoke Section 56(2)(vii)b(ii). The reading of the assessment order shows that the case was selected for limited scrutiny only on this aspect regarding

ACIT, Non-Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai vs. Late Shri Mahaveer Bhandari, Legal Heir- Smt. Lalitha Bhandari, Chennai

ITA 2785/CHNY/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2785/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Asst. Commissioner Of Late Shri Mahaveer Bhandari, Income Tax, Rep. By Legal Heir Smt. Lalitha Non-Corporate Circle 7(1), Vs. Bhandari, Chennai. 9, Athipattan Street, Mount Road, Chennai – 600 002. Pan: Aadpb 877A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ajith Kumar Chordia, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri Ajith Kumar Chordia, CA
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 56(2)(vii)

case. Ground No. 5 - Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) ought to have upheld the addition on account of section 56(2)(vii) of Rs. 7,85,10,196/- as it was correctly computed based on the Fair Market Value as on the date of transfer. Ground

Mr. Giliyal Chandrashekhara Bhat, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 24(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 750/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Accordingly, the assessee was asked to show cause as to why the said difference should not be added to his total income under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. In response, the assessee submitted that he had taken a flat in the year 2005 and the agreement ... Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 29.12.2017 passed under section 143(3) of the Act made an addition of Rs.92,85,800/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Further, the AO also rejected the claim of the assessee of set off of unabsorbed business losses under