PREMAL P PANDYA,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD
What were the facts?
The assessee received a reward of USD 2.18 million from the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for whistleblowing. The Assessing Officer treated this reward as taxable income under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, which was upheld by the CIT(A).
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the reward received from the US SEC is taxable income. While Section 56(2)(x) might not be directly applicable, the reward is taxable under the residuary provision of Section 56(1) as 'Income from other sources'.
What were the issues?
Whether the reward received from a foreign securities regulator for whistleblowing is taxable in India, and if so, under which provision of the Income Tax Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 56(2)(x),Section 56(1),Section 10(17A),Section 234B,Section 234D
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA
PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 22.12.2025 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2022-23 in the proceeding u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred as “the Act”).
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2022-23 on 30.07.2022 declaring total income of Rs.33,190/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 02.06.2023. The assessee is a resident individual Premal P P
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 56(2)(x)
- M/S Mama Foods, Alwar vs ACIT, Central Circle, AlwarITA 1311/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Satpal Sethi, Bilaspur vs Income Tax Officer 2(1), BilaspurITA 539/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Satpal Sethi, Bilaspur vs Income Tax Officer 2(1), BilaspurITA 539/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Gautam Kumar Singh, Etawah vs ITO, Ward 2(2)(5), EtawahITA 256/AGR/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Renu Kumari, Ecc Flat vs ITO Ward 1(1), JamshedpurITA 19/RAN/2026[2018-2019]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2018-2019
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rajlaxmi Agro Food Product Private Limited And Anr. vs. The Superint., CGST And Cx, Berhampore Range, Berhampore Division, Bolpur Commiss. And Ors.Calcutta · 6 Oct 2026
- Shibsankar Ghosh vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 6 Oct 2026
- Shankar Prasad Gupta vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 6 Oct 2026
- Alkem Laboratories Limited vs. Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise, RaigadBombay · 6 Oct 2026
- Axis Bank LTD vs. State Of Maharashtra Thru. G P And AnrBombay · 6 Oct 2026