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)

Vikas Agarwal, Sambhal vs. Income Tax Officer, Sambhal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6268/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Saim, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Mamta Gourav Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 20(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7345/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 147Section 270ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

Mamta Gourav Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 20(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 7344/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 147Section 270ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

Sanjeev Kumar, Ropar, Punjab vs. Ward-2(2), Ropar, Punjab

ITA 303/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 303/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sanjeev Kumar, The Ito, M/S Khurana Filling Station, बनाम Ward 2(2), Chamkaur Sahib, Ropar Vs. Distt. Ropar, Punjab 140121 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Ajppk8321E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent (Physical Hearing) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 56(2)(vii)

Swapnal Subhash Anbhavane, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 7191/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 148Section 148ASection 270ASection 56(2)(vii)

Mayur Kanubhai Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 1992)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5600/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rishav PatawariFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

Nilesh Pravinchandra Doshi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(1)(3), Mumbai, Maharashtra

ITA 8368/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarnilesh Pravinchandra Ito Ward 42(1)(3), Doshi Kautilya Bhavan, B/29, Pushpanjali Vs. Bandra Kurla Building, Jambli Gully, Complex, Bandra Borivali West, Mumbai- East, 400 092 Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Amcpd6391D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Jay Shah, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.01.2026

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

Pratish Shah (HUF), Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 1113/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargshri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh C Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

Sarayu Krishna Kamat, Piramal Chamber vs. DCIT Circle 22(1), Piramal Chamber Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6738/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Sampat NagapFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary (SR AR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

Ck International Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 677/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Satyen Sethi & A.T. PandaFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

Baba Healthcare Private Limited vs. ACIT Circle -1, Fbd

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 476/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshbaba Healthcare Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, C/O. Ipso Legal, H-35, 1St Circle-1, Floor, Jangpura Faridabad Extension, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcb7985R Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Saxena, Adv Ms. Ssumnagla Saxena, Adv Shri Dishant Sethi, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

Mr. Thirumani, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-6(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3351/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:3351/Chny/2024 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Thirumani, Acit, 260/1, Mint Street, Park Town, Vs. Non-Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai – 600 003. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aagpt-7541-K] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(थ&/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54FSection 56(2)(vii)

Jagmeet Singh Sabharwal, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 954/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Singh Sabharwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 50C

Rekha Kishore Shah (Legal Heir of Kishor Dhirajlal Shah ), Mumbai vs. ACIT-42(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4409/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Malav P. ShethFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 147Section 148ASection 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

Khushi Sanjay Khandar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(4)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6758/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147

Khushi Sanjay Khandar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(4)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6757/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147

Jaydip Dhar, Jalpaiguri vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Jalpaiguri

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 642/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us That This Appeal Is Time Barred By 421 Days, For Which An Application Has Been Filed By The Assessee For Condoning Of The Said Delay. After Taking Into Account The Reasons Cited By The Ld Ar & Considering The Affidavit On Records We Find That The Delay Is Attributable To The Illness Of The Assessee For Which The Medical Certificate Along With Other Documents Were Placed Before Us

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69BSection 69C

Urusi Rahman, Kadma vs. ITO, Jamshedpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 257/RAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.257/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Urusi Rahman….... …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 88 New Rani Kodar, Line No.4, Po Kadma, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand- 831005. [Pan: Amxpr0867K] Vs. Ito, Jsr…..……………….....….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 18, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 27.05.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Did Not File Any Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017–18. Subsequently, The Case Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 On The Basis Of Information Received By The Assessing Officer That The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property For A Declared Consideration Of ₹10,00,000, Whereas The Value Adopted For Stamp Duty Purposes Was ₹25,75,000. It Was Alleged That The Provisions Of Section 56(2)(Vii)(B) Of The Act Were Applicable. Accordingly, Notice Under Section 133(6) Was Issued Calling Upon The Assessee To Explain The Reasons For Not Filing The Return Of Income & To Furnish Details Regarding The Purchase Of The Property. However, There Was No Compliance By The Assessee. Thereafter, Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act Was Issued After Obtaining The Requisite Prior Approval From The Competent Authority. During The Course

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

Raghavendra Ramakrishna Naik, Mumbai vs. ITO Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2027/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Raghavendra Ramakrishna Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Naik 3(3)(1), Mumbai Raghavendra Ramakrishna Room No. 626, 6Th Floor, Naik D-1, Flat No. 7, Navyouak Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, Society, Bhandup East, G Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai 400042 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051 Pan: (Afapn9077M) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Ms. Manisha Thakkar, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By Ld. Ito (Intl. Tax) Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai-3 Vide Order No. Itba/Com/F/17/2024-25/1072645237(1) Dated 28.01.2025 Passed Pursuant To The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 02.12.2024 For Ay 2016-17. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. The Applicant States That The Learned Income Tax Officer Has Erred In Passing The Order Which Is Illegal, Arbitrary & Against The Principle Laid

For Appellant: Ms. Manisha Thakkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Lucknow vs. Rakesh Kumar Pandey, Gonda

ITA 405/LKW/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 145(3)Section 54FSection 56(2)(vii)Section 69Section 69A