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

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.92

Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) 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.

128 judgments on BharatTax turn on Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii).

Judgments on Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii)

Shri Rasik Ballabh Rastogi, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer- 6(3), Lucknow

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

ITA 445/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Saurabh Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Pratibha Singh, Addl CIT DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 54BSection 54FSection 56(2)(vii)

Sita Ram Meena Income Tax Officer - 9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Vivek Omprakash Abrol, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4618/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

ITO, Mumbai vs. Fiero Fernandes, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6372/MUM/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
Section 115BSection 139Section 147Section 147ASection 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 69

Jyoti Satish Naik As Wife and Legal Heir of Late Satish P. Naik, Nallasopara vs. ITO, Ward 4(4), Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2373/MUM/2026[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2026AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 159Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Tirupataiah Phanithi, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 608/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Aug 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.

For Appellant: Sri P Muralimohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri A.P. Babu, Sr. AR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 56(2)

Raj Kumar Kapoor, Delhi vs. Assessing Officer, Vikas Bhawan

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesseee is hereby allowed on the above observations

ITA 6546/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalraj Kumar Kapoor Assessing Officer Ward 60(4), 85, Leaih Apartments, Vs. Vikas Bhawan, Vasundhara Enclave, New Delhi Delhi Pan:Aaepk9683K (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gorav Jain, Adv & Sh. Tarun Chanana, Adv Respondent By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr (Vc) : 26.05.2026 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Gorav Jain, Adv &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 250Section 50CSection 55ASection 56(2)(vii)

Aditya Devendra Joshi, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 13(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1620/PUN/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1615 & 1620/Pun/2026 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Aditya Devendra Joshi, Vs. Ito, Ward-13(2), Pune. C- 701, Roseland Residency, Pimple Saudagar, Aundh Camp S.O. Pune City, Pune- 411027. Pan : Afxpj9940G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Niraj Shah (Virtual) Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Haladkar Date Of Hearing 14.07.2026 : Date Of Pronouncement 15.07.2026 : आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 21.01.2026 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Facts Are Identical & Both The Appeals Were Heard Together, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Shah (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Haladkar
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 192Section 249Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(vii)

Aditya Devendra Joshi, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 13(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1615/PUN/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1615 & 1620/Pun/2026 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Aditya Devendra Joshi, Vs. Ito, Ward-13(2), Pune. C- 701, Roseland Residency, Pimple Saudagar, Aundh Camp S.O. Pune City, Pune- 411027. Pan : Afxpj9940G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Niraj Shah (Virtual) Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Haladkar Date Of Hearing 14.07.2026 : Date Of Pronouncement 15.07.2026 : आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 21.01.2026 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Facts Are Identical & Both The Appeals Were Heard Together, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Shah (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Haladkar
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 192Section 249Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(vii)

Harjeet Singh Chhabra, Faizabad vs. Income Tax Officer-I, Faizabad

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 796/LKW/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Jun 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Vice- & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 253(3)Section 253(5)Section 50C(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

Nagalinga Reddy Anil, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 40/BANG/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Balakrishnan S & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vidhyadhar S.B, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 68

Kalim Sheikhjalil Sheikh, Chandrapur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -2, Chandrapur

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

ITA 21/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur13 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.21/Nag/2026 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Kalim Sheikhjalil Sheikh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Rehmat Nagar, Ward-2, Chandrapur Chandrapur-442401, Maharashtra Pan: Dozps3680J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri MohammedFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 69

Biswadip Ghosh, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circlie - 1(1), I.T., Kolkata

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

ITA 10/KOL/2026[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Apr 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

Sophia Mushtaq Panirwala, G T Road Mumbai vs. ACIT, Assessment Unit, NFAC

ITA 7242/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21 Sophia Mushtaq Panirwala Vs Assistant Commissioner Of 7-D Billimoria Hosg, Income Tax, Proctor Road, Grant Road, Assessment Unit, Nfac, Mumbai - 400007 New Delhi - 110002 (Pan: Aigpp2287C) Appellant Respondent Present For: Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhujhunwala, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradipsinh Saktavat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1080505962(1) Dated 10.09.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 13.08.2022 For Ay 2020-21. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. “Whether The Id Cit-A,Nfac Was Justified By Passing The Order Without Affording Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard & Personal Hearing Despite The Admitted Facts That There Are So Many Glitches On Portal Resulting Details/Submissions Couldn'T Be Uploaded. 2. Whether The Ld Cit-A(Nfac) Was Justified By Upholding The Assessment Order On The Issue Of Invoking Section 56(2) On The Difference Of Rs.2,28,41,000/-Due To Stamp Valuation & Declared Consideration Without Considering The Nature

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhujhunwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradipsinh Saktavat, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 69

Hitesh Sharma, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Palampur, Palampur

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

ITA 1487/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

Sidh Farms, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 55(5), Delhi

In the result, the addition made by the Ld

ITA 6672/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6672/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम M/S Sidh Farms Income Tax Officer, 32, Dsidc Jhilmil Industrial Area, Vs. Ward 55(5), Room No.401, Delhi – 110095. D-Block, Vikas Bhawan, Pan No.Acofs1102P I.P. Estate, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Neelesh Shyamsunder Sable, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 51(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 8304/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Respondent: Mr. Sumit Sinha, Adv. (Virtually
Section 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viia)Section 56(2)(x)

Subodh Adhikary, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 51(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 669/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Kanchan Lalwani, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

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

ITA 484/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 56(2)(x)Section 68

Maya Devi, Manoharpur, Chaibasa vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Jamshedpur

In the result, all the captioned appeals are allowed

ITA 298/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am (Through Hybrid Mode) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.296-298/Ran/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Maya Devi, Vs. Ito-Ward-2(1), Nandpur, Jharkhand-833104 Jamshedpur "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. :Bgwpd 1450 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sumit Mittal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm : These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), All Dated 14.05.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Ita No.296/Ran/2024 Is Relating To Assessment Made U/S.147 R.W.S.144 Of The Act. Ita No.297/Ran/2024 Is Relating To Penalty Order Passed In The Case Of The Assessee U/S.271Aac(1) Of The Act & Ita No.298/Ran/2024 Is Relating To The Penalty Order Passed U/S.270A Of The Act. 3. Since The Issues Involved In All These Appeals Are Common Except For Variations In Figures, Therefore, All The Three Appeals Are Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. First We

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Mittal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 270ASection 271ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 69

Maya Devi, Manoharpur, Chaibasa vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Jamshedpur

In the result, all the captioned appeals are allowed

ITA 297/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am (Through Hybrid Mode) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.296-298/Ran/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Maya Devi, Vs. Ito-Ward-2(1), Nandpur, Jharkhand-833104 Jamshedpur "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. :Bgwpd 1450 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sumit Mittal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm : These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), All Dated 14.05.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Ita No.296/Ran/2024 Is Relating To Assessment Made U/S.147 R.W.S.144 Of The Act. Ita No.297/Ran/2024 Is Relating To Penalty Order Passed In The Case Of The Assessee U/S.271Aac(1) Of The Act & Ita No.298/Ran/2024 Is Relating To The Penalty Order Passed U/S.270A Of The Act. 3. Since The Issues Involved In All These Appeals Are Common Except For Variations In Figures, Therefore, All The Three Appeals Are Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. First We

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Mittal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 270ASection 271ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 69