← All Phrases

“Section 56(2)(vi)”

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

The decision most relied on for Section 56(2)(vi) is (i) Rajputana Textile (Agencies) Ltd. v. CIT (42 ITR 743), cited in 15 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 56(2)(vi)

(i) Rajputana Textile (Agencies) Ltd. v. CIT
42 ITR 743 · 1961 · Supreme Court
15
citing judgments

Purchase of shares with the intention of selling them at a profit constitutes an adventure in the nature of trade. Such an adventure, if it results in an advantage of income nature, can be brought to tax under profits and gains from business or profession.

Judgments citing Section 56(2)(vi)

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt Anju Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 3860/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

substitution of declared sales consideration by circle rate value in case of sale of property, analogues provision for purchase of property lies in section 56(2)(vi)/(vii). The section lays down that even if fair market value of a property exceeds circle rate, the purchase consideration in the case

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt Anju Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 3859/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

substitution of declared sales consideration by circle rate value in case of sale of property, analogues provision for purchase of property lies in section 56(2)(vi)/(vii). The section lays down that even if fair market value of a property exceeds circle rate, the purchase consideration in the case

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt Anju Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 3858/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

substitution of declared sales consideration by circle rate value in case of sale of property, analogues provision for purchase of property lies in section 56(2)(vi)/(vii). The section lays down that even if fair market value of a property exceeds circle rate, the purchase consideration in the case

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Anju Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 3831/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

substitution of declared sales consideration by circle rate value in case of sale of property, analogues provision for purchase of property lies in section 56(2)(vi)/(vii). The section lays down that even if fair market value of a property exceeds circle rate, the purchase consideration in the case

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Satya Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 3826/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

substitution of declared sales consideration by circle rate value in case of sale of property, analogues provision for purchase of property lies in section 56(2)(vi)/(vii). The section lays down that even if fair market value of a property exceeds circle rate, the purchase consideration in the case

Shri Bhupinder Singh ( Prop) the Nest Hotels & Motels, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 250/ASR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250oSection 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Narendra Gehlaut, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed e appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1101/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Dy. Cit, Central Circle-6(4), Shri Narendra Gehlaut, Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Air 875, Sector – 17B, Gurgaon, India Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Haryana, 122 001. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aazpg 9630 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. K. GopalFor Respondent: Mr. Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM

DCIT Circle-20(1), New Delhi vs. Process Nine Technologies (P) Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 9310/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vi)Section 56(2)(viib)

share premium. During the course of assessment proceeding the Assessing Officer asked the assessee company to submit justification as per Section 56(2)(vi) (b) of the Act for the share value along with 11UA valuation report. Further, vide questionnaire dated 15.12.2018 the assessee company was asked to show cause

ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi vs. Krishan Kumar, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6383/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangal, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Pathak, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 14Section 144Section 153CSection 56(2)(vi)

statement of the same bank account in this assessment year and the subsequent assessment years. 4.4 The relevant portions of provisions of section 56(2)(vi) are reproduced below: “56. (1) Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from the total income under this Act shall ... which stated as under: "5. Further, through the above referred letter, the comments regarding the applicability of section 56(2)(vi) has been specifically sought. In this regard, it is submitted that case of the assessee belongs to Karan Luthra Group of cases. This group was found to be involved

Bindia Chhabra, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3171/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 56(2)(vi)

erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.19,39,997/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 56(2)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') on the ground that gifts received by the appellant on behalf and on occasion of her daughter ... occasion of her daughter's marriage, had no connection with the daughter so as to fall within the exception contained under section 56(2)(vi) of the Act.” 3. At the outset, in this case, ld. Counsel of the assessee prayed that assessee seeks permission to file application under Rule

Rummy Chabbra, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3170/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 56(2)(vi)

erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.19,39,997/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 56(2)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') on the ground that gifts received by the appellant on behalf and on occasion of her daughter ... occasion of her daughter's marriage, had no connection with the daughter so as to fall within the exception contained under section 56(2)(vi) of the Act.” 3. At the outset, in this case, ld. Counsel of the assessee prayed that assessee seeks permission to file application under Rule

ACIT, Circle- 29(1), New Delhi vs. Ahmad Ansari Imtiyaz, New Delhi

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3003/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usi.T.A. No. 3003/Del/2018 (A.Y. 2014-15) Acit, Ahmad Ansari Imtiyaz, Circle : 29 (1) Vs. 301/B-4, Govindpuri, New Delhi. Kalkaji, New Delhi – 110 019. ( Appellant ) Pan No. Aaapi7849D ( Respondent )

For Appellant: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 2(47)Section 51Section 56Section 56(1)Section 56(2)(ix)Section 56(2)(vii)

been held to be genuine, there is no question of the transaction being without any consideration so as to invoke provisions of section 56(2)(vi) of the Act. The judgement of the Jurisdictional High Court is squarely applicable to the present case. 16. Thus, we do not find

Smt Hiral Dhaval Kothari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD 30(1) (4), Mumbai

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

ITA 223/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Hiral Dhaval Kothari, Ito, Ward-30(1)(4), B-403, Sanskriti Building, Kautilya Bhavan, Kedermal Road, Malad (East) Vs. Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 097. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aumpk 5669 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Prateek Jha & Mr. Prayag Jha, Ars Revenue By : Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Prateek Jha &For Respondent: Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, DR
Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

Stamp Duty the value of the property was taken at the assessee às income from Other Sources as per the deeming provisions of section 56(2)(vi)(b). There is no requirement in the law that any on money payment need to be established for making the addition ... between agreement value and ready reckoner value should not be added to the total income of the assessee according with the provision of section 56(2)(vi)b). In response to the show cause the assessee's AR submitted a letter dated 23.11.2017. The AR stated that the property