Section 56(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.92

Section 56(2)(vii) falls under section 56 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 92 (Income from other sources) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 92 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 56(2)(vii) is Rajeev Kumar Agarwal v. ACIT (149 ITD 363), cited in 104 of the 365 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

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. 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.

CIT v. Keiser-EHind Mills Co. Ltd.
128 ITR 486 · 1981 · High Court
18
citing judgments

Revenue officials have a duty to guide assessees in making claims permissible under the law, as indicated by a Board circular. The assessment officer's duty at the original assessment stage includes considering grounds for relief under specific Finance Act provisions.

DCIT v. VVD & Sons (P.) Ltd.
158 Taxmann.com 395 · 2024 · Reported
14
citing judgments

Additions to income cannot be made solely on the basis of a statement without corroborating documentary evidence. Statements made under oath can be used as evidence, but without credible supporting evidence, additions cannot be made based purely on confessions during search or survey operations.

Gujarat Credit Corpn. Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT
113 ITD 133 · 2008 · ITAT
12
citing judgments

Penalty proceedings cannot be sustained if the foundation on which they were initiated fails, even if the addition is upheld on a different ground. Mere rejection of a claim does not automatically imply concealment of income.

3/52 GST 355 & CIT v. Odeon Builders (P.) Ltd.
266 Taxmann 461 · 2019 · Supreme Court
11
citing judgments
DCIT v. National Standard India Ltd.
85 Taxmann.com 87 · 2017 · Reported
11
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer can invoke jurisdiction under section 153C based on a statement made by a searched person under section 132(4) that discloses additional income relating to the assessee.

Kumar Pappu Singh v. DCIT
101 Taxmann.com 122 · 2019 · Reported
7
citing judgments
Agro Portfolio Private Limited v. PCIT
161 Taxmann.com 303 · 2024 · High Court
7
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 56(2)(vii)

Naresh Kumar, Gurgaon, Haryana vs. PCIT, Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 209/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Sept 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumarnaresh Kumar, Vs. Pcit Village Sikanderpur Jaipur (Badha), Vpo Sikanderpur, Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No:Aabtb 7344 K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Rakesh Kumar (Thru V.C.) Respondent By : Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, Cit Date Of Hearing 08.07.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 28.09.2026 O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta, Am:- The Present Appeal Was Originally Heard By The Division Bench Consisting Of Hon’Ble, Sh. Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai & Hon’Ble, Sh. Narinder Kumar. On Account Of A Difference Of Opinion Between The Hon’Ble Members On P A G E | 2 Naresh Kumar Certain Issues Arising In The Appeal, The Following Point(S) Of Difference Were Framed & Referred To The Hon’Bleof The Tribunal Under Section 255(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). “Whether Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case When The Ld. Ao Has Verified The Issue Of Chargeability Of Interest In Hands Of The Assessee & Taken A Plausible View. Whether That View Taken By The Ld. Ao Which Is One Of The Plausible View Can Be Subjected To Revision As Per Provision Of Section 263 Of The Act Or Not”

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Kumar (thru V.C.)For Respondent: Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 145B(1)Section 255(4)Section 263Section 28Section 57

Rajesh Malhotra, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(4), Surat

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 642/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat01 Sept 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyanirajesh Malhotra, Income Tax Officer, 107, Shanti Nagar, Ward - 2(3)(4), Althan Tenament Road, Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, Near Suyog Nagar, Majura Gate, Surat Surat Pan: Ablpm1377N (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ramesh Malpani, Ca Respondent By : Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.09.2026 O R D E R Per : Suchitra Kamble, J M: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short “Cit(A)”] Dated 11.02.2025 For The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As In Law, The Id. Cit (A), Nfac, Delhi [Cit (A)] Has Erred In Upholding The Validity Of The Order Passed U/S 148A (D) & Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The I. T. Act, 1961 (The Act), Which Were Clearly Invalid, Time Barred & Bad In Law & Thereby Erred In Upholding The Validity Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act, Which Is Clearly Invalid & Bad In Law Ab Initio. Appellant Prays For Quashing The Same. 2. Without Prejudice To Above Ground Of Appeal, That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As In Law, The Id. Cit (A) Has Erred In Upholding The Rajesh Malhotra

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Malpani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)