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)

Jairoop Kothapalli, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1426/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Smt. Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR

Section 144Section 69Section 69A

Aslam Fazlurehman Kagdi, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 131/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

Tamojit Das, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 63(3), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1200/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 154Section 56(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Sowmya Sathyan

The appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned

ITA/182/2021HC Karnataka24 Sept 2024

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

Section 260Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

Subhash N Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 25(1)-3, Mumbai

ITA 3826/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Shweta Singh, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward 2(3), Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 8

ITA 14/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.14/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shweta Singh ………. Appellant 204, Tower No. 15, Mig Colony, Uttarayan, Matigara, Siliguri-734010. (Pan: Bndps2756J) Vs. Income Tax Officer ………… Respondent Ward-2(3), Siliguri, W.B. Appearances By: Shri Vikash Surana, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Addl. Cit Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 26.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 04.09.2024 Order Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 06.11.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed U/S. 143(3)/144 Of The Act By Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Siliguri Dated 11.12.2017. I.T.A. No. 14/Kol/2024 Shweta Singh, Ay : 2015-16

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Gaurav Dugar, Chennai vs. PCIT-8, Chennai

ITA 948/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147wSection 148Section 263Section 43CSection 52(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(vii)

Saba Hussan Ansari, Bhopal vs. DCIT 2(1) Delhi, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 285/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2014-15 Saba Hussan Ansari, Dcit 110/5, Badwai, 2(1), बनाम/ Bhopal Delhi Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Ebxpa6463D Assessee By Shri S.S.Solanki, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 13.08.2024

Section 144Section 147Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

Chandana Mukherjee, Burdwan vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Burdwan

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

ITA 808/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

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

Sandip Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 45(2), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1057/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata08 Aug 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1057/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Sandip Kumar Agarwal,………….…..…………Appellant P-19/1, Vip Road, Scheme-Vii M, Kolkata-700054 [Pan:Admpa3225G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………………Respondent Ward-45(2), Kolkata

Section 155Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

Hirak Sarkar, Hooghly vs. ACIT, Cir. 23(1), Hooghly

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

ITA 892/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Ld Cit(Appeals) As His Mother Was Not Well Because Of Prolonged Disease Was Going Under Medical Supervision And

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 250Section 50C(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

Rohit Vijay Soparkar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(3)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 2729/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

Shri Robert Paul Raj, Mumbai vs. ITO 42(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 509/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Harshal Ajmera, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 274Section 56(2)(vii)

Hemendra Pranjivan Bosmiya, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 987/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Renu Jauhri

Satya, Shimla vs. ITO, Ward-2, Shimla

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

ITA 531/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aditya Sood, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 282(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

Mohammad Ibrahim, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-32(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1408/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1408/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mohammad Ibrahim……..……..…..……............…...……………....Appellant 6 Jhautala Road, Park Circus, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan:Aanpi9964N] Vs. Ito, Ward-32(3), Kolkata…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Smt. Swatee Baid, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 21, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 30, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.10.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Action Of The A.O Of Making The Addition Of Rs. 47,55,787/- By Wrongly Invoking The Provisions Of Sec 56(2)(Vii)(B)(Ii). 2 For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld Cit(A) Ought To Have Considered The Fact That The Assessee Is A Promoter & Real Estate Developer & The Asset Purchased Was To Be Used For Business & Was Not A Capital Asset As Such Provisions Of Sec 56(2\(Vii) (B)(Ii) Were Not Applicable.

Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)