Section 56(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.92

Section 56(2)(vii) 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) is Rajeev Kumar Agarwal v. ACIT (149 ITD 363), cited in 104 of the 365 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 56(2)(vii)

Rajeev Kumar Agarwal v. ACIT
149 ITD 363 · 2014 · ITAT
104
citing judgments

Curative amendments, such as a proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) introduced to remove undue hardship, apply retrospectively even without specific legislative declaration, rectifying shortcomings and obviating unintended difficulties.

CIT v. Mukundray K. Shah, Citation No.
160 Taxmann 276 · 2007 · Supreme Court
39
citing judgments

Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, aims to prevent tax evasion by treating certain payments made by closely held companies to shareholders or their concerns as dividends.

ICDS Ltd. v. CIT
10 SCC 529 · Reported
24
citing judgments

The Supreme Court remands a matter when an assessee is deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine individuals whose statements were relied upon by the Revenue under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act.

CIT v. Keiser-EHind Mills Co. Ltd.
128 ITR 486 · 1981 · High Court
18
citing judgments

Revenue officials have a duty to guide assessees in making claims permissible under the law, as indicated by a Board circular. The assessment officer's duty at the original assessment stage includes considering grounds for relief under specific Finance Act provisions.

DCIT v. VVD & Sons (P.) Ltd.
158 Taxmann.com 395 · 2024 · Reported
14
citing judgments

Additions to income cannot be made solely on the basis of a statement without corroborating documentary evidence. Statements made under oath can be used as evidence, but without credible supporting evidence, additions cannot be made based purely on confessions during search or survey operations.

Gujarat Credit Corpn. Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT
113 ITD 133 · 2008 · ITAT
12
citing judgments

Penalty proceedings cannot be sustained if the foundation on which they were initiated fails, even if the addition is upheld on a different ground. Mere rejection of a claim does not automatically imply concealment of income.

3/52 GST 355 & CIT v. Odeon Builders (P.) Ltd.
266 Taxmann 461 · 2019 · Supreme Court
11
citing judgments
DCIT v. National Standard India Ltd.
85 Taxmann.com 87 · 2017 · Reported
11
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer can invoke jurisdiction under section 153C based on a statement made by a searched person under section 132(4) that discloses additional income relating to the assessee.

Kumar Pappu Singh v. DCIT
101 Taxmann.com 122 · 2019 · Reported
7
citing judgments
Agro Portfolio Private Limited v. PCIT
161 Taxmann.com 303 · 2024 · High Court
7
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 56(2)(vii)

Bharat Bhushan Bansal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 43(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 7459/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7459/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 56Section 68

Radesh Chand Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(2), Jaipur

ITA 807/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

Lakshmi Mendalu Narayan Rao Naidu, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

ITA 3100/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 144Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 69C

Rajveer Singh, Meerut vs. DCIT Central Circle Gzbd, Meerut

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 21/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajveer Singh Vs. Dcit House No.4 Krishna Garden Central Circle Gzbd Ganga Nagar, Meerut, Uttar Meerut Pradesh -250001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Aayushi Gupta, Ca Ms. Airik Sihgh, Advocate Respondent By Sh.Prakash Nath Baranwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10/01/2024 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am:

Section 115BSection 234ASection 271Section 271ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 69

JCIT Spl. Range- 12, New Delhi vs. Shalu Walia, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1331/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

Section 143(2)Section 2Section 54Section 56(2)

DCIT, Central Circle-18, Delhi vs. Ms Delhivery Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2176/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit Vs. Ms Delhivery Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle – 18 N-24-N34, S-24-S-34, Air Delhi Cargo Logistics Centre-Ii, Opposite Gate 6 Cargo Terminal Igi Airport, South West, New Delhi-110037 Pan No.Aapcs9575E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. T. James Singson, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. K. M. Gupta, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 06/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/12/2023 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Preferred Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-27, New Delhi Dated 08.05.2023 Pertaining To A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :- 1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Right In Not Sustaining The Disallowance Of Deduction Claimed On Account Of Employee

Section 37(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore vs. Rajasekaran Vasanthamalli, Town Hall, Coimbatore

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 653/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri K.G. Raghunath (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

Chandrasekaran Valarmathi, Town House, Coimbatore vs. Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 652/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri K.G. Raghunath (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

Harshvardhan Saraf, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-29, Kolkata

ITA 811/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

Shri Bhupinder Singh ( Prop) the Nest Hotels & Motels, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Jalandhar

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

ITA 250/ASR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250oSection 56(2)(vii)

Shri Abdul Gaffar Shaikh Chand, Akola vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 23/NAG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.23/Nag/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Abdul Gaffar Shaikh The Principal Chand, Vs Commissioner Of Mohammad Ali Road, Income Tax, Phulary Galli, Nagpur – 1. Akola - 440002. Pan: Avxps7253H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2023

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

Fakhruddin T Malik, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 21(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 2642/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Joginder Singh, Sr. DR
Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

Eswarawaka Sudhakar Reddy, Tirupati vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Tirupati

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 503/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Eswarawaka Sudhakar Vs. The Assistant Reddy, Commissioner Of Income Tirupati. Tax, Tirupati. Pan : Acmpr7248F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri Hari Natha Reddy, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. P. Sumitha, Sr. Ar. Date Of Hearing: 15/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/11/2023

For Appellant: Sri Hari Natha Reddy, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. P. Sumitha, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

M/S. Riya Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur

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

ITA 108/RPR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss) A No. 01/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Riya Real Estates Private Limited 308, 3Rd Floor, Ceejay House, Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Mumbai (Mh)-400 018 Pan : Aadcr8769B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 153DSection 250Section 56(2)(viia)

Shri. James Kochappu Kolenchery, Canada vs. ACIT, International Taxation, Trivandrum

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 892/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasjames Kochapu Kolenchery Asst. Cit, International 563, Lombarde Ave Oshawa Taxation, Vs. Ontario, Canada Lij8Hs 999999 Thiruvananthapuram [Pan:Ekjpk3818P] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Smt. Divya Ravindran, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal Directed Against The Order Dated 13.05.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Bangalore [Cit(A)], Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting His Appeal Against Order Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 28.12.2019 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That The Appeal Is Delayed By 27 Days. As Explained In The Condonation Petition, Submitted Along With, In The Form Of An Affidavit By Shri Tony V.J., The Assessee’S, A Resident Of Canada, Constituted Attorney, The Impugned Order Was Received By The Assessee In Canada Only On 17.6.2022, Whereupon The Power Of Attorney Was Executed & The Papers Sent To India, Entailing Time & Which Led To The Delay In Preparation Of Appeal Papers & Filing Them. The Same Is Found Reasonable & Fairly Not Objected To By Smt. Devi, The Learned Sr. D.R. Hearing In The Matter Was Accordingly Proceeded With.

For Appellant: Smt. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 69A

Tanaji Tulshiram Babar, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer-5, Circle-5, Pune

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 559/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 10(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

Sambhaji Sattaji Sarpate, Nanded vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Nanded

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 800/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 800/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sambhaji Sattaji Sarpate, 803-9, Qnyaneshwar Nagar, Wadi Bo Gram Wadi Bu Tq, Nanded, Dist Nanded – 431602. Pan: Djbps7573D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Nanded . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध/ Appearances Assessee By : Shri Pratik Jha Revenue By : Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 07/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01/09/2023 आदेश/ Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1053263618(1) Dt. 29/05/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] By The National Faceless Appellate Centre [‘Nfac’] For Assessment Year 2012-13 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Shri Pratik JhaFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

Ashutosh Sinha, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 643/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2023AY 2016-17
Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

Yesha Dhirajlal Thakrar, Rajkot vs. The DCIT, NFAC Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 75/RJT/2023[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot18 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) From Penalty Order Dated 29.01.2022 (Din: Itba/Pnl/F/271(1)(B)/2021-22/1039193062(1)) Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer,Nfac, Delhi(Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(B) Of The 1961 Act Levying Penalty Of Rs. 30,000/- Against The Assesse For Non Compliance Of Three Notices Dated 27.07.2021, 06.08.2021 & 16.08.2021 Issued During Reassessment Proceedings , All Three Aforesaid Notices U/S 142(1) Of The 1961 Act. The Proceedings Were Conducted Before Division Bench Through E-Court Through Virtual Hearing Mode.

For Appellant: Shri R D Lalchandani,AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A.K.Pandey, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271BSection 56(2)(vii)

Shri Shailesh Mohanbhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(4), Surat

ITA 315/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.315/Srt/2023 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Shailesh Mohanbhai Patel Income Tax Officer, At & Po: Sarsana, Khajod, Ward-2(3)(4), Surat, Vs Surat-395007 Aayakar Bhavan, Room Pan No: Aqapp 7701 P No.613, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 56(2)(vii)