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)

Kusum Maheshwari, India vs. Proprietor, India

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

ITA 58/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Jun 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Kusum Maheshwari Vs Income Tax Officer, (Individual), 57, Shri Ram Road, Range-5(1), Lucknow Aminabad, Lucknow, U.P. Pan: Amepm4193N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. R.P. Tiwari, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.06.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 15.11.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ao For The A.Y. 2016, Passed On 21.03.2022 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order U/S 250 Having Din & Order По. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1070395040(1) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Ao To The Tune Of Rs. 53,34,000/- Made Under Section 56(2)(Vii)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating The Factual Explanations & Documentary Evidence Submitted Before The Appellate Proceedings. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Treating The Dvo Report As Conclusive Evidence, Whereas It Is Well Settled By Various Fiduciary Pronouncement That Such Reports Are Merely Advisory In Nature & Cannot Override Actual Purchase Consideration.

For Appellant: Sh. R.P. Tiwari, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)