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The case addresses the taxability of cash withdrawn from sub-contractors' bank accounts by employees of a civil contractor engaged in infrastructure development.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

Dilip Kantilal Kubavat, Porbandar vs. ITO WD 2(3), Porbandar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 522/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.522/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2016-17 Dilip Kantilal Kubavat Ito बनाम/ Prop. Vijay Dairy Farm, Ward 2 (3), Vs Near Ramdhun S V P Road, Porbandar 360575 Porbandar - 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Azfpk8009B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14 /10/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 21.03.2025, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here-In-After Referred To As “The Act”) Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds Of Appeal. However, The Solitary Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Not To Consider The Basic Fact That The Assessee Has Gifted The Property To His Sister In Law (Younger Brother'S Wife) That Is, To A Relative For A Consideration Dilip Kantilal Kubavat

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

assessee has offered the transaction for tax, suo- motto and moreover, the assessee’s case doesn’t fall under the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. The Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act is applicable only to the purchaser. Therefore, the assessee’s case ... covered under the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. The Ld. Dilip Kantilal Kubavat DR also submitted that the assessee’s case is covered u/s 50C of the Act. The Ld. DR further pointed out that this is not the case of gift, as there

Dimple Rajesh Oswal, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(1), Pune

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

ITA 1506/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Bharat ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Sailee Dhole, JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)(vii)

determining the total income of Rs.19,60,971/- wherein he made addition of Rs.10,76,291/- by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act by observing as under: “4.6. Conclusion drawn. A show cause notice dated 13-11-2023 was issued to the assessee asking ... computation of the SRO value of the property and the fair market value (as claimed) the AO has noticed that provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) are attracted in the present case and the difference of Rs.10,76,291/- (Rs.57,31,291/- minus Rs.46,55,000/-) was added

Rakesh Agarwal, Aligarh vs. PCIT Agra-1, Agra

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 205/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 147oSection 148Section 263Section 50Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

retrospectively 19 ITA Nos.- 204 & 205 /Agr/2025 Mamta Agarwal and Rakesh Agarwal w.e.f. 01.04.2003, when the section 50C was brought into statute. The Section 56(2)(vii) being pari- materia to section 50C of the Act, and the said Circular no. 8/2018 also amending the provisions of Section 56

Mamta Agarwal, Aligarh vs. PCIT Agra-1, Agra

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 204/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 147oSection 148Section 263Section 50Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

DCIT, Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai vs. Akshat Vinimay Private Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 1949/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (CIT-DR)

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH

Madhur Laxman Gadikar, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 4(1), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 406/NAG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemadhur Laxman Gadikar, Kharbikar Mohalla, House No.426–B Ward No.27, Golibar Chowk ……………. Appellant Jaganath Gol, Nagpur-440018, Maharashtra, Pan – Avzpg3725G V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–4(1), Nagpur Assessee By :Shri Abhishek Kumar. A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Kumar. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr. D.R

Section 115BSection 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

Authority and the amount paid by the assessee is hereby added to the total income of the assessee as per the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 4. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A)/Ld. AO is justified in passing

Kataria Snack Pellets Private Limited, Rajkot vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 468/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.468/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kataria Snack Pellets Pvt. Ltd. The Acit, Circle-1(1) बनाम 510, Gidc, Metoda Kalawad Road Rajkot Rajkot-360021, Gujarat Vs. Pan : Aafck2028L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Nishit B. Jesur, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

present case. (iv) Assessee relied on the CBDT instruction no. F No 173/14/2018-ITA.I wherein it was stated that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act shall not be applicable in case of Start-ups. Assessee in its submission in many place discussed about the start ... industry norm if any and/or Scientific Data, Scientific Method scientific study and applicable Guidelines regarding DCF Method of Valuation. (vi) Assessee contended that section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act is not applicable to genuine business transaction. In this regard, as per the provisions of Income

Aparna Sandeep Kulkarani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Int Tax Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 909/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2015-16 Aparna Sandeep Kulkarni, Income Tax Officer, 201A, Kanchanjanga, Int. Tax. Ward-3(1)(1), Sector 12-A, Plot No.12, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Koparkhairane, Bandra Kurla Complex, Navi Mumbai-400709. Bandra (East), Pan : Axfpk0077M Mumbai-400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ketan L. Vajani For Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 17-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-10-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Ketan L. VajaniFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

2. The DRP has erred in not appreciating the fact that the case of the appellant is covered by the first proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and that on application of the said proviso, the transaction value of the flat was more than the value ... Without any prejudice whatsoever to the above grounds, the DRP has failed to appreciate that the 'consideration' as specified in section 56(2)(vii)(b) is not confined to monetary consideration. On the facts of the case, the appreciation of the value of the old flat forgone by the appellant

Madhu Dubey, Allahabad vs. Dc/Ac-1(1), Allahabad, Mg Marg Allahabad

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

ITA 58/ALLD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 Madhu Dubey V. Dc/Ac-1(1) 657A/1, Jamuna Nagar, Chak Mg Marg, Allahabad- Raghunath, Naini-211008. 211001. Pan:Asipd8489J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Naman Agrawal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Naman Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. DR

/and purchase price paid Rs 1.20,00,000i e. Rs 56 06.000/is added to the income of assessee under provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) (ii) of IT Act,1961. (Addition of Rs.56,06,000/-] 5. The assessee has made capital addition of Rs 2 lacs ... transactions. It Is pertinent to mention here that even, the gesesses furnished these documents, she would not have been given any benent as section 56(2)(vii)(b) speaks of gift receipt from others up to in aggregate) Rs. 50,000/-. Thus assessee failed to give sufficient evidence regarding this

Mahesh Katragadda, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 659/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 263Section 56(2)(x)

Bench in Trilok Chand Sain (supra) has dealt with a similar contention and has categorically held that agricultural land is also covered under section 56(2)(vii)(b). The ratio of the said decision squarely applies to the facts of the present case before us. We thus, in terms

Rudaram Dungararamji Choudhary, Mumbai vs. ITO. 19(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5134/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

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

Rs.1,33,64,550/-. 2.2 The Ld.AO thus made addition of the differential amount in the stamp duty value by invoking provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the act. 2.3 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, simplified appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 2.4 The Ld.CIT(A) after ... stamp duty authority determine the value of the flat at Rs.1,33,64,550/-, cannot be the reason to invoke provisions of section 56 (2)(vii) (b) of the act. He submitted that the 1st payment made by the assessee’s on 18/10/2010 towards the purchase of the flat

Fragment Nivesh P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 572/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Enormous Nivesh Pvt. Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., 1, Zamrudpur Community Income Tax, Central Circle Centre, Kailash Colony, 13, Ara Centre, New Delhi – 1100 48 Jhandewalan Extension, Pan No. Aabcd1454F Delhi -1100 55 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Fragment Nivesh P. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 1, Zamrudpur Community Income Tax, Central Circle Centre, Kailash Colony, 13, Ara Centre, New Delhi – 1100 48 Jhandewalan Extension, Pan No. Aaecs5314G Delhi -1100 55 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Avikal Manu, CIT - DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 56(2)

which did not fall within the purview of section 56(2)(viia) instead of allotment of shares profession has to be dealt with section 56(2)(vii)(c). 9.1 As per ratio of judgment rendered in the case of PCIT vs. Jigar Jashwantlal Shah, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court

Enormous Nivesh P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 570/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Avikal Manu, CIT - DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 56(2)

Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Noida vs. ITO 5(2) 2, Noida

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1785/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 1785/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Vs Cit(A)/Nfac, L-002, Prateek Laurel, Sector-120, Delhi Noida, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Arvps8765J Assessee By : Ms. Preeti Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Pradumna Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1054853837(1) Dated 03.08.2023, In Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Ms. Preeti Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Pradumna Kumar Singh, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

between the parties in the relevant previous year involving “lease rights” than the prescribed capital asset(s) of “land and building” as per section 56(2)(vii) Explanation (d)(i) of the Act. The Revenue could hardly dispute that the impugned statutory provision is pari materia to section ... jurisdictional high courts’ 3 Rajesh Kumar Sharma decisions, a view which favours the assessee ought to be adopted and delete the impugned section 56(2)(vii) addition herein amounting to Rs.21,95,375/- in very terms. Ordered accordingly. 5. All other pleadings between the parties on merits stand rendered academic

Yakub Ibrahim Doba, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)(5), Surat

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

ITA 322/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.322/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Yakub Ibrahim Doba Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1 Maiyat Faliya, At: Kathor Tal: 2(2)(5) Kamrej, Surat-394150 Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bqkpd0801P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

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

purchase considerations and fair market value determined by the stamp duty valuation authority. On the aforesaid difference of Rs.52,68,777/-, provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act was attracted. The AO issued show cause notice on 11.11.2015 and its reminder on 24.11.2016 to the assessee. However

Shanmugasundaram Venkatachalapathy, Tirunelveli, Tamilnadu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Tirunelveli

In the result, grounds of appeal raised

ITA 2056/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayshri Shanmugasundaram I.T.O., Venkatachalapathy, Vs. Ward-4, C/O-Durv & Associates Llp, No. Tirunelveli. 10/80, Avm Avenue 3Rd Street, Virugambakkam, Chennai-600092 (Tamil Nadu) Pan No. Acapv 3414 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

appreciating the fact that a sum of Rs. 19,22,500 has been deposited out of the gifts from relatives as defined in section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. 7. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the Learned AO without appreciating the fact

Jashoda Khimji Bhadra, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4997/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailjashoda Khimji Bhadra, 102, Shubh Apt, Opp Kelkar College, 90 Feet Road, Mulund (E), Mumbai – 400081 ............... Appellant Pan : Abvpb5569P

For Appellant: Ms. Rupa NandaFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Chandra, Sr.DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.8,60,000/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, being the alleged difference between the stamp duty value and the actual consideration paid purchase of immovable ... through video conferencing and without adjudicating the matter on merits.” 3. The solitary grievance of the assessee is against the addition made under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 4. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. 5. The brief

Vijay Singh Chauhan, Noida vs. ITO, Ward-2(5), Noida

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 2561/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishravijay Singh Chauhan, Income Tax Officer, House No.-193, Gali No.-3, Vs. Ward- 2(5), Noida, Village Chhalera, Sector-44, Uttar Pradesh, Noida, Uttar Pradesh India. India. Pan No: Aeipc4637E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Sh. Naveen Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.09.2025 Order Per Sudhir Pareek, Jm: The Aforetitled Appeal Has Been Preferred Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter, In Short, ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 17.07.2023 For Ay 2015-16, By Which Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed.

For Appellant: Sh. Naveen Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 10(37)Section 143(2)Section 28Section 34

Giri HUF Vs Department of Income Tax ITA No. 405/Chd/2013 (Hon'ble ITAT, Chandigarh): The Assessment Year concerned is AY 2008-09 when section 56(2)(vii) was not in statute. It followed the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT, Faridabad vs. Ghanshyam (HUF). The more

Mahesh Rochiram (HUF), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Piramal Chambers

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3524/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

Difference of Rs. 2,82,02,500/-. As, The AO erred in adding such difference as the Income from Other Sources under section 56(2)(vii)(b), considering the date of Registration as the Date of Purchases. 3. The AO has claimed that the buyer and seller accepted the Sales ... Payment. The claim of the AO is completely unjustified. 4. Further, as rightly mentioned in the earlier notice issued by AO about Section 56(2)(vii)(b) Section 56(2)(vii)(b) says that:- 56[2] In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section

Bhavesh Jayanti Sondarwa, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3009/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Bhavesh Jayanti Sondarwa Ito Ward 19(1)(1) A/1, 6Th Floor, Room No. 603 Room No. 501 Samrat Ashok Chs, S.K. Vs. Piramal Chambers Rathod Marg, Ambedkar Lalbaug, Parel Nagar, Mahalaxmi Mumbai-400 012. Mumbai-400 034. Pan : Cnpps2949G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pravin SalunkheFor Respondent: Shri Navin Gandhi, CA

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(a)Section 149(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

above cited appeal, the Ld. AO has added an amount of Rs. 1.08 crore for the income returned by appellant under section 56(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act because there is a difference in the value of property shown in the document as purchase value and the value