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)

Kunal Rajendra Mashru, Mumbai vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Junagadh

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 387/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.387/Rjt/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kunal Rajendra Mashru C/O. Pradip Corporation, D-3, Jeevan Jyot, Cawasji Patel Street, Mumbai – 400001, Maharashtra Pan : Afhpm1835K (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Circle-1, Junagadh : (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Choksy, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2025 Order Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha: Captioned Appeal Filed By Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal), Addl/Jcit(A)-3, Chennai (In Short 'Cit(A)'), Dated 29.05.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 07.11.2019.

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Choksy, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.DR
Section 10(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

Gaurav Tiwari, Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Gurugram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1695/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.1695/िद"ी/2025 (िन.व. 2015-16) Gaurav Tiwari, 1401, Tower-6, Unitech Horizon, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Sector-Pi, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201301 Pan: Aezpt-4925-L बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 1(1), Gurugram, Haryana 122016 अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant By : S/Shri Ajay Goyal & Mudit Dewan, Advocates "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 27/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.01.2025, For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Shri Ajay Goyal, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That The Assessment For Ay 2015-16 Was Reopened For The Reason:- (I) The Assessee Had Purchased Immovable Property Worth Rs.55,04,000/- During Financial Year 2014-15;

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Goyal & Mudit Dewan, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 56(2)(vii)