“Section 56(2)(vi)”

Section References (mined)Section 56Section 56(2)(vi)33 judgments

SURESH KUMAR PAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO WAD-22(3), MUMBAI

ITA 723/MUM/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250(6)Section 56(2)(vi)

following grounds of appeal: “1.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT erred in making addition under section 56(2)(vi)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.27,57,665/- being Assessment Year 2017-2018 difference between value of purchase consideration

ASIRVAD MICRO FINANCE LIMITED,ANNA SALAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(1), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1139/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1139/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. P.R. Prasanna Varma, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N., CIT

Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

regard to interpretation of the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) – 7.2. **************** Thus in the case of the assessee, when the provisions of Section 56(2)(vi), (viib) & (x) of the Act, are interpreted in a harmonious manner lifting the corporate wheel of the assessee company, it is abundantly Asirvad

DIABETOMICS MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 2147/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

For Appellant: CA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 56(2)(viib)

issue of shares by venture capital undertaking to venture capital\ncompany or venture capital fund is squarely covered by first\nproviso to section 56(2)(vi) (b) wherein it has been stated that said\nsection shall not apply.\n6.7 The appellant also placed reliance on the decision of the\nDelhi

DIPALIBEN M. SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

In the result, the appeals bearing IT(SS)A No

ITA 537/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarit(Ss)A No. 103 & 104/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Vs. Dipaliben M. Shah, Deputy Commissioner Of E/33, Krishnalila Society, Income-Tax, Near Bankers Hosptial, Central Circle-2, Harni Warasia Ring Road, Baroda Vadodara-390006 [Pan : Ajrps 7522 B]

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250

cash received on new admissions. 10. The Ld. CIT(A), though accepting this factual position, proceeded to treat the amounts as taxable under section 56(2)(vi) of the Act. The said provisions reads as under: 56. (1) Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from ... amounts have been received by the assessee as student fee and also offered by the Institute before the Settlement Commission, the provisions of Section 56(2)(vi) are not attracted to this case and no additions on merits is also called for. Ground No.3 12. Based on the contributions made

KETAN HIMATLAL MEHTA,MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs. NFAC, NOT APPLICABLE

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2499/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 32MSection 56(2)(x)

that with effect from 01.04.2009, the property would only include capital assets is misplaced as the amendment solely dealt with the issues related section 56(2)(vi) and its meaning was not supposed to be imported to the fabric of the provisions 56(2)(x) of the Act. The contention

SHARAD PANWAR,SHAHDARA, DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VIKAS BHAWAN, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

ITA 3927/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3927/ िद"ी /2025 (िन.व. 2012-13) Sharad Panwar, B-527, Mig Dda Flats, East Of Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi 110093 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Bcrpp-9210-P बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-58(3), R. No. 317, D-Block, Vikas Bhawan, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 Assessee By : None Department By: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 19/11/2025 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 28.06.2024, For Assessment Year 2012-13 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 288 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Supported By An Affidavit Citing Reasons Causing Delay In Filing Of Appeal. After Perusal Of The Same, We Are Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional, The Delay Has Been Caused For The Reasons Stated In Petition Which Appears To Be Bonafide. Thus

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 148Section 2(41)Section 56(2)(vi)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “एफ”, िद"ी "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस "रफौर रहमान, लेखाकार सद" के सम

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR vs. ASHOK SHARMA, REWARI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1227/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 145B(1)Section 28Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, \"B\" JAIPUR\nडॉ. एस

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MURSHIDABAD vs. ASOK KUMAR JAIN, MURSHIDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 804/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Income Tax Officer Asok Kumar Jain Aaykar Bhawan, 39, Rn Tagore 23, Shahid Surya Sen Road, Road, Berhampore, Murshidabad, Berhampore, Murshidabad, Vs. West Bengal-742101 West Bengal-742101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aevpj2710Yh Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.09.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, DR

Section 143(1)Section 237Section 56(2)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM Income

GUMMADI SARASWATHI,TENALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TENALI

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

ITA 375/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 375/Viz/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) Gummadi Saraswathi V. Income Tax Officer - Ward – 1 C/O. Ca Mv Prasad Income Tax Office First Floor D.No. 19-15-47 Opposite Prasad & Co Contractors Opp. Sai Baba Temple D.No. 6-3-871, Snehalata Tenali – 522201 Greenlands Road, Begumpet Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad – 500016 [Pan:Amapg7100K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 147Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

purchase value and stamp value of the immovable property) under the head income from other sources as required under the provision of section 56(2)(vi)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"] after taking necessary approval from the competent authorities

SATYAM SUREKA ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the different assessees are partly allowed

ITA 152/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey] I.T.(S.S).A. No. 13 /Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Satyam Sureka Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata

Section 115BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56(2)Section 68

ITAT-Mum) and the Hon’ble Bench has held thus: “Addition on account of the receipts on dissolution of trusts under section 56(2)(vi) as income from other sources-Held that:- The facts and circumstances are exactly identical in assessee’s husband case. Respectfully following and taking consistent view

VINOD KUMAR CHUGH,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(3), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 207/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 274

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

M/S. GLOBAL STAR REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed

ITA 44/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E. Sridhar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 69B