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)

Umesh Padamsi Gosar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 16(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6578/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhआयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 6578/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) Umesh Padamsi Gosar The Income Tax Officer, 402, 4Th Floor, Rna Classic Ward 16(3)(5) बनाम/ Building, S.V. Road, Khar Room No. 3103, 3 Rd Floor, West, Mumbai-400 054 Mittal Court, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aabpg4904C अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Viral Doshi, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Akhtar H Ansari, Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17.12.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R महावीर ससुंह, न्याययक सदस्य/ Per Mahavir Singh, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-7, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Cit(A)-7/It-94/184/2016-17 Order Dated 15.10.2018. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(3)(5) Mumbai (In Short Ito / Ao) For The A.Y. 2014-15 Vide Order Dated 28.12.2016, Under Section 143(3)

For Appellant: Shri Viral Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H Ansari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(2)(vli)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

Mukeshkumar Bachubhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application is dismissed

ITA 1157/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhstay Application No. 108/Ahd/2019 (In Ita No. 1157/Ahd/2019) & Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mukeshkumar Bachubhai Patel, V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 4, Sonal Park Society, Ward (2)(2)(3) Naranpura, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Pan No. Akzpp 5531 C (Applicant) .. (Respondent) Assessee(S) By : Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23/09/2019 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav: The Present Stay Application Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee For The Stay Of Outstanding Demand Amounting To Rs.2,04,47,127/- In Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. With The Assistance Of The Learned Representatives, We Have Gone Through The Record Carefully, And, It Emerges Out From The Record That The Assessee Has Filed His Return Of Income On 21.03.2016 Declaring Total Income At Rs.2,43,900/-. It Came To The Notice Of The Assessing Officer That The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property For Consideration Of Rs.1,50,00,000/-, But The Stamp Duty Valuation Authority Has Valued The Property For The Purpose Of Payment Of Stamp Duty At Rs.3,19,59,183/-. Armed With The Above Information, Learned Assessing Officer Proceeded To Pass The Assessment Order & With The Aid Of Section 56(2)(Vii)(B) Of The Income-Tax Act, He Assessed The Total Income At Rs.3,22,03,080/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.2,43,900/-. This Has Given

For Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr DR
Section 250Section 250(6)Section 56(2)(vii)