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

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.92

Section 56(2)(vii)(b) 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)(b) is CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal (338 ITR 485), cited in 69 of the 626 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 56(2)(vii)(b)

CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal
338 ITR 485 · 2011 · High Court
69
citing judgments

The revenue must prove that an assessee received extra consideration beyond the declared value; a Departmental Valuation Officer's (DVO) report alone is insufficient to establish such receipt.

Calcutta in Reliance Jute Industries Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer
150 ITR 643 · 1984 · High Court
23
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer (AO) is not required to refer the valuation to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) if the AO has conducted a detailed inquiry and is satisfied with the cost of construction. Strict adherence to procedural requirements is essential; failure to comply with mandatory conditions renders the assessment based on such non-compliance invalid.

Parekh Bros. v. CIT
150 ITR 105 · 1984 · High Court
21
citing judgments

The Department cannot take advantage of an assessee's ignorance, especially when a surrender is made solely to achieve peace and the assessee is not an expert in income tax matters.

Gateway Leasing (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT
117 Taxmann.com 442 · 2020 · High Court
20
citing judgments

A notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, is barred by limitation if the original assessment was completed under section 143(3).

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.

Dalmia v. CIT
102 Taxmann 702 · Reported
17
citing judgments
CIT v. MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD.
221 Taxmann 25 · 2014 · High Court
16
citing judgments

Assessments initiated without proper jurisdiction, such as under section 153C without the necessary foundation, are null and void and must be annulled.

Radha Kishan Kungwani v. ITO Ward
185 ITD 433 · ITAT
14
citing judgments

For the purpose of determining income under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) or 56(2)(x)(b), the stamp duty value or fair market value of immovable property is to be considered as on the date of payment made by the assessee towards booking of the property, where an agreement for purchase and payment of consideration has been made prior to the date of registration.

CIT v. Kay Arr Enterprises
299 ITR 348 · 2008 · High Court
13
citing judgments

A family arrangement or settlement does not give rise to any income. This is because it represents the working out of existing rights among family members rather than a transfer of property.

CIT v. Kamal Behari Lal Singha
82 ITR 460 · 1971 · Reported
13
citing judgments

The nature of a receipt as capital or revenue is determined by its character in the hands of the recipient, not the payer.

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

Simal Prasad (Alias Bimal Prasad), Darjeeling vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 169/KOL/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.169/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Simal Prasad…………......………..…................…..........….…… Appellant Hermitage, Holmden Road, Dist-Darjeeling, W.B - 734101. [Pan: Cpfpp6187R] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(2), Darjeeling.......……........….........…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subrata Singh, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 17, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 17, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 03.01.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’ 2. The Sole Issue Involved, In This Appeal, Is Relating To The Value Of The Property Purchased By The Assessee Vide Registered Deed Dated 24.07.2014. The Assessing Officer Noted That The Assessee As Per The Said Deed Has Paid Only A Sum Of Rs.5,42,500/-, Whereas, The Market Value Of The Property Was At Rs.15,70,800/-. He, Therefore, Invoked The Provisions Of Section 56(2)(Vii)(B) & Added The Difference Of The Consideration Mentioned In The Sale Deed As Compared To The Market Value As Undisclosed Sale Consideration Of The Property.

Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Sonal Ashish Soni, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 30(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2855/MUM/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2855/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Sonal Ashish Soni बिधम/ Ito, Ward-30(3)(3) C/Om/S Shyam Jewellers Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Vs. Shot No. 2-3-4, Guru Nanak C-13, Bandra Kurla Shopping Centre, Shankar Complex, Bandra (E), Lane, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400067. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Asgps9276A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nishit Gandhi Revenue By: Shri Anil Gupta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/03/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 13.09.2022 For Ay. 2016-17. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming Addition Of Rs.7,78,104/- As Against The Addition Of Rs.31,12,145/- Made By The Ao. 3. Brief Facts As Noted By The Ao Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derives Income From Salary & Income From House Property & Income From Other Sources. The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.60,680/- On 28.03.2017 For Ay. 2016-17. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass. The Ao Noted That The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property Jointly With Her Family Member For A Value Of Rs.2,11,00,000/-. However, He Noted From The Purchase Agreement That The Circle Rate/

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta
Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)
Section 56(2)(vii)(b) Income Tax Act (2025: s.92) — Case Laws | BharatTax