← All Phrases

“Section 56(1)(vii)”

Section References (mined)Section 56Section 56(1)(vii)13 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 56(1)(vii) is CIT v. R.D. Aggarwal and Co. (56 ITR 20), cited in 156 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 56(1)(vii)

CIT v. R.D. Aggarwal and Co.
56 ITR 20 · 1965 · Supreme Court
156
citing judgments

A 'business connection' for non-residents requires a real and intimate relation between their trading activities outside India and activities within India, contributing directly or indirectly to their earnings. The Supreme Court assigned a wide meaning to this term.

CIT v. Indian
56 ITR 77 · 1965 · Supreme Court
70
citing judgments

For an indivisible business, expenditure cannot be apportioned between exempt and taxable income. Interest expenditure incurred for business purposes is deductible even if it does not immediately result in income.

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The case addresses the taxability of cash withdrawn from sub-contractors' bank accounts by employees of a civil contractor engaged in infrastructure development.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

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.

Joseph Mudaliar v. DCIT
130 Taxmann.com 250 · 2021 · Reported
18
citing judgments

The amendment to section 50C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by inserting the third proviso through the Finance Act, 2018, is curative and applies retrospectively. This means the tolerance band for the difference between sale consideration and stamp duty value, introduced by this amendment, is applicable to earlier assessment years.

DP World (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT
140 ITD 694 · 2013 · ITAT
17
citing judgments

A transaction of gift cannot be brought to tax. Corporations can give and accept gifts, and these are considered capital receipts, not taxable under Section 28(iv).

Judgments citing Section 56(1)(vii)

Sharad Sevantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(3)(6), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4154/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri B. V. Jhaveri, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

been any unaccounted cash transaction between the buyer and the seller. The CIT(A) while holding that the addition should be made under section 56(1)(vii)(b) for want of agreement between the buyer and the seller on the sale consideration and the respite sought under the proviso cannot

Kaajal Aijaz Ilmi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7005/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.2228 & 2229/Del/2018 & 7004 & 7005/Del/2019 [Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16 & 2014-15 & 2015-16] Kaajal Aijaz Ilmi, Vs Acit, C/O-Rra Tazindia, D-28, Central Circle-20, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049. Pan-Aabpi4222R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2025

Section 1Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(1)(vii)

treating it as appellant own funds and further erred in holding that the assessee is outside the purview of the provisions of section 56(1)(vii) and its exclusion clause ignoring the fact that no money was received during the year and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings

Kaajal Aijaz Ilmi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7004/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.2228 & 2229/Del/2018 & 7004 & 7005/Del/2019 [Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16 & 2014-15 & 2015-16] Kaajal Aijaz Ilmi, Vs Acit, C/O-Rra Tazindia, D-28, Central Circle-20, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049. Pan-Aabpi4222R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2025

Section 1Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(1)(vii)

treating it as appellant own funds and further erred in holding that the assessee is outside the purview of the provisions of section 56(1)(vii) and its exclusion clause ignoring the fact that no money was received during the year and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings

Kaajal Aijaz Ilmi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2229/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.2228 & 2229/Del/2018 & 7004 & 7005/Del/2019 [Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16 & 2014-15 & 2015-16] Kaajal Aijaz Ilmi, Vs Acit, C/O-Rra Tazindia, D-28, Central Circle-20, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049. Pan-Aabpi4222R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2025

Section 1Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(1)(vii)

treating it as appellant own funds and further erred in holding that the assessee is outside the purview of the provisions of section 56(1)(vii) and its exclusion clause ignoring the fact that no money was received during the year and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings

Kaajal Aijaz Ilmi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2228/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.2228 & 2229/Del/2018 & 7004 & 7005/Del/2019 [Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16 & 2014-15 & 2015-16] Kaajal Aijaz Ilmi, Vs Acit, C/O-Rra Tazindia, D-28, Central Circle-20, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049. Pan-Aabpi4222R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2025

Section 1Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(1)(vii)

treating it as appellant own funds and further erred in holding that the assessee is outside the purview of the provisions of section 56(1)(vii) and its exclusion clause ignoring the fact that no money was received during the year and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings

Rabin Arup Mukerjea, Mumbai vs. ITO, Int Tax Ward, 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on

ITA 5884/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n&\nSHRI AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 197Section 55Section 56Section 56(1)(vii)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

56 of the Income Tax Act, the donor and donee do not fall under the purview of "Relative" and therefore the provisions of section 56(1)(vii)(b) is invoked. Hence. I have reason to believe that as the assessee has not filed ROI and has not disclosed these material

Sunny Tarunkumar Doshi, Jetpur vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 288/AHD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 56(1)(vii)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

income from the investments. Thus, the assessee purchased immovable property during the year under consideration without adequate consideration and therefore the provisions of Section 56(1)(vii) of the Act are applicable. After recording the reasons for reopening the case and also obtaining approval of the Higher Authorities, notice under

ACIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy, Kadapa

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is

ITA 670/HYD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri C.A.Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Ms.M.Narmada, CIT-DR and
Section 132Section 56(1)(vii)

arrat arftciia aferaer, gacrare FIs IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant

Jsc Ogcc Kazstroy Service Project Office, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Intl. Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2228/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Delhi11 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.2228 & 2229/Del/2018 & 7004 & 7005/Del/2019 [Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16 & 2014-15 & 2015-16] Kaajal Aijaz Ilmi, Vs Acit, C/O-Rra Tazindia, D-28, Central Circle-20, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049. Pan-Aabpi4222R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2025

Section 1Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(1)(vii)

treating it as appellant own funds and further erred in holding that the assessee is outside the purview of the provisions of section 56(1)(vii) and its exclusion clause ignoring the fact that no money was received during the year and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings

Jalaluddin Mohammed Ali Khan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 26(1)(4) Mumbai, Bandra East

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 47/MUM/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jalaluddin Mohammed Ali Khan, Ito Ward-26(1)(4), A/9 Sharif Market Laxminarayan Pratyakshakar Bhavan C-11 Vs. Mandir Road, Off Kherani Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Sakinaka, S.O. Bandra East, Mumbai-400072. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Anppk 9394 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: 02/07/2024
Section 56(2)(vii)

made by the assessee and therefore, invoking second proviso to was made by the assessee and therefore, invoking second proviso to section 56(1)(vii) of the section 56(1)(vii) of the Act, benefit of first proviso cannot be first proviso cannot be allowed in the case

Sakshi Maheshwari, Kota Rajasthan vs. ACIT, DCIT, Central Circle, Kota, Kota Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 584/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

taxable in view of sec. 56(1)(vii) of I.T. Act. 1961. Thus, though the Gifts are not taxable as per section 56(1) (vii) of I.T. Act 1961 but even not treating the Gifts from relative then it can be made taxable u/s 56(1)(vii

Smt. Saroj Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 1807/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1807/Del/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Saroj Gupta Ito W/O Late Bimal Kumar Gupta, Vs. Ward 69(1) R/O F-104-10, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan No. Aaepg1897M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 56Section 56(1)(vii)

I.T.A.No.1807/Del/2016 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER

M/S Nanobi Data and Analytics Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 472/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Nanobi Data & Analytics Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 1289/1090/E, Commissioner Of 18Th Cross, 3Rd Sector, Income Tax, Vs. Hsr Layout, Circle – 5(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 102. Bangalore. Pan: Aadcn8822F Appellant Respondent : Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Assessee By Advocate : Capt. Pradeep Shoury Arya, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 11/11/2016 By The Ld.Cit(A)-5, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) In So Far It Is Against The Appellant, Is Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts Of & The Circumstances In The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Not Justified In Not Giving The Appellant A Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard In The Impugned Matter. 3. That Notice Under Section 143(2) Having Been Served After The Expiry Of Time Limit Stipulated Under Section 143(2) Is Time Barred & Hence Bad In Law & The Order

For Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(1)(vii)

learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 69,854/-, being Share Premium received, under section 56(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act contrary to the facts of and in the circumstances of the Appellant's case. 9. The Appellant craves leave