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)

Kumari Sanjana Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-4(5), Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 47/PAT/2020[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Patna27 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.47/Pat/2020 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kumari Sanjana Singh................................…...........................……….……Appellant W/O Shiv Nararyan Singh, Harsh Egg Centre, Near Anishabad Golambar, Manik Chand Talab, Anishabad, Patna-800002. [Pan: Cleps6120G] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(5), Patna.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhi Sarkar, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 27, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 27, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.02.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Patna-2 [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 115BSection 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68Section 69Section 695Section 69ASection 69CSection 69D

Rajib Rathindra Saha, Bhayander vs. ITO (It) 4 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 7352/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 7352/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2014-15) Rajib Rathindra Saha, B-25 Divine Life Chs, Jesal Park, Bhayander (East), Thane 401 105 Pan: Appps-1480-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito(It)-4(2)(1), Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri R.A. Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/02/2022

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani

Section 56(2)(vii)

Meena Verma, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-32(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 7222/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Princy Singla, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

Shri. Abdul Rehman Ismail Solanki, Mumbai vs. CIT(A)-58, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1960/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 142(1)Section 50C(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

Kiran R Sawlani, Mumbai vs. ITO (Intl. Tax) 4 (1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1669/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Kiran R. Sawlani Ito (Intl. Tax) 4(1)(1) 104/A, Building No. A/3, Vs. R. No. 1729, 17Th Floor, Lok Nirman, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Khar West, Mumbai – 400 052 Mumbai – 400 021S

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shiddaramappa K., D.R

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

Rupa Samir Mehta, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, Range-19, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 511/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Hon’Ble) & Shri Saktijit Dey (Hon’Ble)

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

M/S. Mahesh Kumar Malhotra (HUF), Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc - 9 (1), Chennai

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

ITA 777/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.777/Chny/2020 िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 142ASection 50CSection 69B

Bhupatral Gordhandas Sayani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-18(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5391/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 5391/Mum/2019 Aayakr Apila Sam Aayakr Apila Sam (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2014-15) Bhupatrai Gordhandas Sayani The Income Tax Officer- Flat No.403, 7Th Floor, Praful Co- 18(1)(2) Room No.204, 2Nd Floor Op.Hsg. Soc. Opp. Paramgold Vs. Earnest House, Nariman Point Jewellers, Mathuradas Road, Mumbai-400 021 Kandivali(W), Mumbai-400 067 (Apilaaqai Apilaaqai Apilaaqai- / Appellant) Apilaaqai (P`%Yaqaai P`%Yaqaai P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) P`%Yaqaai .. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aafps1225G अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Jitendra Singh, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Vivek Perampurna, Dr 27.10.2021 सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2021 Aadosa Aadosa / O R D E R Aadosa Aadosa

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, DR

Section 143(3)(ii)Section 50C

Lalita, Alwar vs. ITO Ward - 42(4), Delhi

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

ITA 4307/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2012-13 Lalita, Vs. Ito, C/O K.L. Datta & Company, Ward 42(4), Vashishtha Plaza 2, Delhi. Manu Marg, Alwar, Rajasthan. Pan: Adgpl2634Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 150Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 56Section 57

Naina Saraf, Jaipur vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 271/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 271/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Cuke Naina Saraf, Pr.Cit-2, Vs. B-93, Surya Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Aevps 4665 N Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)

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

Bhoopal Shanthi, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(2)(8), Bangalore

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

ITA 702/BANG/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.B.T.Shetty, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh B.Ghale, Standing Counsel

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

Shri Harish Kumar Jasoria, Alwar vs. Pr.CIT, Alwar

ITA 1194/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (FCA)For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (CIT)

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

Ayshabi Abdul Majid Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 26(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 988/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyayshabi Abdul Majid Shaikh, Ito-26(1)(4), 301A, Farzana Apartments, Room No. 707, C-11, New Mill Road, Kurla (West), 7Th Floor, Pratyakshakar Mumbai-400070 Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E), Vs. Pan: Bmlps1271D Mumbai-400051. Appellant Respondent : None Appellant By Revenue By : Shri Udaya Bhaskar Jakke (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 06.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2020 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Respondent: None

Section 254(1)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 80T

Shri Ram Prasad Meena, Kota vs. ITO, Ward -1(2), Kota

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed with no

ITA 278/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Paul , JCIT DR

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

DCIT, Cirlcle-6, Jaipur vs. Shri Ashok Agarwal, HUF, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the

ITA 71/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jul 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Ao & That The Assessee Has Also Shown Land/Plots As Investments & There Are No Developmental Expenses As Such Debited/Claimed In The Year.”

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Amrish Bedi (CIT)

Section 56(2)(vii)

Arghanil Mukhopadhyay, Hooghly vs. I.T.O., Ward-23(2), Hooghly

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

ITA 2360/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri A.T. Varkery, Am ]

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

Smt. Sunita Yadav, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7-4, Jaipur

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

ITA 32/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Miss. Chanchal Meena (JCIT)

Section 271Section 56(2)(vii)

Gopal Kumar Saha, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-37(1), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1516/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.1516/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Gopal Kumar Saha Vs. Ito, Ward – 37(1), Kolkata 54/5A, Om Building, Strand Road, Barabazar, Kolkata – 700 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Asups 7018 L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23/12/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-11, Kolkata Dated 27.03.2019 Passed In Case No.Cit(A)-11/Kol/10104/2017-18 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Case Called Twice. None Appears At Assessee’S Behest. The Registry Has Already Sent It An Rpad Notice For Today’S Hearing. It Is Accordingly Produced Ex- Parte. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised In The Instant Appeal Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Invoking Section 56(2)(Vii)(B)(Ii) Addition Of Rs. 19,29,100/- On Account Of Difference Between Actual & Stamp Price In The Purchase Deed Executed On 26.11.2014. The Revenue’S Only Argument Is That Although The Assessee Had Entered Into Corresponding Purchase Agreement On 17.03.2011 & Paid Cheque Amount Of Rs. 80,000/- On The Very Date, The Same Was Not A Registered Document Which Could Be Taken As Compliance Of Section 56(Vii)(B) 1St & 2Nd Proviso To This Effect. I Find No

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jayanta Khanra, JCIT, Sr. DR

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

Rajnikant Jasraj Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward- 3 Palghar, Palghar

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 6180/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Ms. Hiral D. SejpalFor Respondent: Shri Bhera Ram

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

Vishnubhai Mafatbhai Desai, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2849/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2849/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri S. V. Agrawal, A.R

Section 2(14)Section 49(4)Section 50CSection 54BSection 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)