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)

Gautam Bhakat, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward - 23(2), Hooghly

ITA 869/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2014-15 Gautam Bhakat Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 4(3), Bengal Coal Lane, Ward-23(2), Aayakar V/S. Sheoraphuli, Bhawan, Khadina Hooghly-712223 More, G.T. Road, [Pan No.Ahqpb 1821R] Hooghly-712101 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Dilip Kumar Mitra, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 19-09-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 05-10-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata’S Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed In Case No.Cita-6, Kolkat-6/10144/16-17 Affirming The Assessing Officer’S Action Making Us 50(2)(Vii) Addition Of ₹6,62,962/- In Assessment Order Dated 18.08.2016 Involving Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. I Notice At The Outset That The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion Qua The Above Sole Issue Reads As Follows:- “3. The Appellant Submitted Written Submission, Which Is Reproduced As Under:- ‘Only Ground Of Appeal Is Against Addition Made By The Learned Ao Of Rs.6,60,962.00 U/S. 56(2)(Vii)(B)(Ii) Of The Act. Registration Set Forth Share Of Market Share Of Difference No. & Date Value (Value Your Value Your As Per Assessee Assessee Conveyance Deeds) 00369/2014 5,00,000/- 1,00,00 15,28,586/- 3,05,717/- 2,05,717/- (1/5Th) (1/5Th) 18.1.2014 00400/2014 5,00,000/- 1,00,000/- 15,28,586/- 3,05,717/- 2,05,717/- (1/5Th) (1/5Th) 18.1.2014

Section 143(3)Section 43CSection 50CSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(v)Section 56(2)(vi)Section 56(2)(vii)