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)

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Shri Chinnasamy Ramachandran (Deceased) L/H Gowtham Chandhar, Chennai

ITA 1634/CHNY/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1634/Chny/2026 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Income Tax Officer, Late Shri Chinnasamy Non-Corporate Ward 1(6), Vs. Ramachandran Chennai. Rep. By L/H Gowtham Chandhar, New No.3, Old No.1, First Trust Link Street, Mandaveli, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaihr 4930E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. D. Nithya, Addl. Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Pushpavalli, It Consultant सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.08.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 17.10.2026 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-17. Late Shri Chinnasamy Ramachandran 2. The Appeal Filed By The Department Is Delayed By 83 Days. The Ao Has Filed An Affidavit Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of The Appeal. On Perusal Of The Reasons Stated In The Condonation Petition, We Are Of The View That There Is Sufficient Cause For Late Filing Of The Appeal & No Latches Can Be Attributed To The Department. Hence, We Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Proceed To Dispose Off The Appeal On Merits.

For Appellant: Ms. D. Nithya, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Ms. R. Pushpavalli, IT Consultant
Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 80T