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)

Shrenik Dharamchand Khabiya, Ahmednagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Ahmednagar

ITA 1904/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1904/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Shrenik The Income Tax Officer, Dharamchandkhabiya, Vs Ward-1, Ahmednagar. Flat No.1, Mitra Prem, Anand Nagar, Gruh Society, Gulmohar Road, Ahmednagar – 414001. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pratik Sandhbhor – Ar Revenue By Shri M G Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 31/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 13/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee,Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Pune In Appeal No.Pn/Cit(A)- 2/Iot Wd-1/An/623/2016-17/228 Dated 26.05.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-15.The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Cit(A) Has Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.. 18243128/- U/S 56(2)(Vii)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Disregarding The Serious Objection Raised By The Appellant About The Correctness Of The Stamp Duty Valuation. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Cit(A) Has Further Erred In Not Appreciating The Fact That The Assessing Officer Having Found Favour With The Contention Of The Appellant Disputing The Stamp Duty Valuation Did Make The Reference To Asst. Valuation Officer, Solapur & Inspite Of That Assessing Officer & Cit(A) As Well As The Appellant Could Not Get The Benefit Of Valuation Report Of The Asst. Valuation Officer & Consequently Sustenance Of The Addition Is Not Legal & Correct. The Above Grounds Off Appeal May Kindly Be Allowed To Be Modified, Amended, Altered Etc In The Interest Of Natural Justice.”

Section 56(2)(vii)