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)

Aloke Ray, Kolkata vs. ACIT(Intt.Taxation), Cir.-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 394/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S. Kalyansundaram, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukunga Sema, ACIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 55A

Selvi Chittiraja, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-7(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3437/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

M/S Omprakash Mittal, Indore vs. ITO 2(2), Indore

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

ITA 243/IND/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

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

Shri Gaurav Agarwal, Lucknow vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-I, Lucknow

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 584/LKW/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoorassessment Year 2017-18 Gaurav Agarwal, Dcit, 3/3 Gulmohar Enclave, Vs. Central Circle-1, Gokhle Marg, Lucknow Lucknow Pan – Adjpa4408J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 56Section 56(1)(vii)Section 56(2)(vii)

Shri Sujit Kumar Dey, Chinsurah vs. ACIT, Cir. 24(1), Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 121/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

Madhav Rastogi, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-61(2), New Delhi

ITA 8529/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Madhav Rastogi, Vs Ito, 2, Sreeniketan Apartments, 24, Ward-61(2), Vasundhara Enclave, New Delhi. New Delhi-110096. Pan-Ahopr9376D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Madhav Rastogi, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2022

Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 69

Sarthak Singhal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 20(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1952/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2016-17 Sarthak Singhal, Vs. Ito, C-379, Ff, Ward-20(2), Dsiidc Industrial Area, New Delhi. Narela, New Delhi. Pan: Gaups5422Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Pahuja, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.05.2022 Order

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Pahuja, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 55ASection 56(2)(vii)

ITO (International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mrs. Sanika Avadhoot Shilotri, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1880/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhincome Tax Officer Vs. Mrs. Sanika Avadhoot (International Taxation) Shilotri, 102, Varun, 4(2)(1), Room No. 1728, J.P. Road, Versova, 17Th Floor, Air India Andheri (W), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400061 Mumbai – 400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Amnps1767K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Jayant BhattFor Respondent: B.K. Bagchi
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

Shri Gyanchand M. Bardia, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2)(2), Ahmedabad

Accordingly set aside. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 2244/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri J.L. Bhatia, Sr. D.R
Section 10(2)Section 250(6)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

Mr. Shripad A. Shelar, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT - Cir_34(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2023/MUM/2020[203-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 54Section 56(2)(vii)

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1), Hyderabad vs. Stouvant Pittie, Hyderabad

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 691/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri G.Rama Mohan, ARFor Respondent: Shri T.Sunil Goutam, DR
Section 143(3)Section 54F

Shri Sunil Bandacharya Joshi, Bangaloe vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(3)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2304/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.Preethi Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ananda H., Addl.CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 28Section 56Section 56(2)(v)Section 56(2)(vii)

DCIT, Chennai vs. Shriram Ownership Trust, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly

ITA 320/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. R.Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: 09.12.2021
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(1)(a)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

Neelavara Sanjeeva Rao, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 7(2)(1), Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 227/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 54FSection 56(2)(vii)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-19(1), Mumbai vs. Balaji Trust, Mumbai

ITA 5139/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Senior Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Chhotaray a/w
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(1)Section 2(24)Section 56(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

Nalliah Maran, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 3(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1162/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1162/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Nalliah Maran, The Income Tax Officer, No. 14, Wheat Crafts Road, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 3(4), Nungambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aacpm7048L] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri S. Bharath, Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 25.08.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-5, Chennai, Dated 15.02.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

The ACIT, Central-2, Indore vs. Shri Mohanlal Chugh, Indore

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

ITA 239/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

The ACIT, Central-2, Indore vs. M/S. Chugh Realty, Indore

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

ITA 238/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

The ACIT, Central-2, Indore vs. Shri Nitesh Chugh, Indore

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

ITA 122/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

Sidhant D Uberoi, Mumbai vs. ITO 16 (1)(4), Mumbai

ITA 7343/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 7343/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) Sidhant D. Uberoi The Income Tax Officer, 501, Building No.2, Sangeeta Ward 16(1)(4) फनाभ/ 4T H Apartments, Cts No 1028, Yari 467, Floor, Aayakar Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai- Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. 400 053 Mumbai-40 020 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Abhpu3095M अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Ajay Singh, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar Menon, Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 29.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-4, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Cit-4/E-File-122/Ito-16(1)(4)/2016-17 Vide Dated 09.10.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 16(1)(4), Mumbai (In Short Ito / Ao) For The A.Y. 2014-15 Vide Order Dated 29.12.2016 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’). Sidhant D. Uberoi; Ay 14-15 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Making Addition On Account Of Long Term Capital Gain Without Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee. For This, Assessee Has Raised The Following 4 Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon, DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)