← All Phrases

“Section 56(2)(v)”

Section References (mined)Section 56Section 56(2)(v)23 judgments

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)

immovable property acquired as stock in trade. The CBDT Circular as relied upon by the Appellant is relating to the provision of section 56(2)(v) of the Act and as such not helpful in the present case. Further, there is no clear cut and definite finding either

SEEMA SUREKA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2682/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

since the above co-ordinate\nbench decision. The assessment year therein is 2005-06. Relevant statutory\nprovision at that point of time was Section 56(2)(v) of the Act. This followed clause\n(vi) in Section 56(2) increasing the amount of Rs.50,000/- from earlier limit

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

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

ITA 1834/DEL/2021[20017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

unknown to him, which is reflected in the depression in the intrinsic value of the original shares held by him. Thus, section 56(2)(v),(vi) and (vii) brought in to the Act for addressing the vaccum caused due to withdrawal of the Gift-tax Act cannot be used

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1205/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

unknown to him, which is reflected in the depression in the intrinsic value of the original shares held by him. Thus, section 56(2)(v),(vi) and (vii) brought in to the Act for addressing the vaccum caused due to withdrawal of the Gift-tax Act cannot be used

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

ITA 1276/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Rajendra SisodiaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

nIncome-tax Act, 1961 was enlarged by inserting a new sub-clause (xiii) so as to \ninclude sums referred to in section 56(2)(v) of the Act; b) Clause (v) was inserted \nin Section 56(2) taxing any sum of money exceeding Rs.25,000, received without \nconsideration ... also noteworthy that like gift tax, the basic \nexemption limit has also been prescribed in the section and various exceptions \nprovided in section 56(2)(v) of the Act which were also existing in the like fashion \nin the erstwhile Gift-tax Act, 1958, and this fact also leads

DESH RAJ JAKHAR,GORDHANPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NEEM KA THANA

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

ITA 1261/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shaffi Mohd. AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT -DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 5Section 69

above remand report that the ld. AO has not dealt with the aspect of the chargeability of the gift as per provision of section 56(2)(v) of the Act which deals that the gift received and established as genuine from relative will not be taxed but if the same ... assessee has offered lumpsum amount of Rs. 10 lac as income rest of the amount to be checked considering the provision of section 56(2)(v) of the Act. Considering that aspect of the matter we consider in the interest of the justice to the assessee as well

SARITA KONDA,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 2/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.02/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sarita Konda Camelia Flat No.15, Block A01, 4Th Floor, Greenville City, Boriyakala, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aukps1814J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Tarannum Verma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(v)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

ATISH ANANDA BARNE,PUNE vs. PRAVIN AGRAWAL, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1707/PUN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jan 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(v)

difference amount of Rs.2,26,03,000/- to the total income of the assessee as Income from Other Sources invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(v) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC with a delay of 127 days. The ld.CIT(A)/NFAC

SHEELA DANIEL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(3)(4), MUMBAI, BKC BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI

ITA 2675/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2024AY 2007-08
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234Section 250oSection 271Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(v)

Society on behalf of the assessee while\npurchasing of flat. The Ld.AO has treated the amount as contravening the\nprovisions of section 56(2)(v) of the Act, which was added back with the total\nincome of the assessee. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Id.\nCIT ... allotted a property (Flat A-302) considered to be received free of cost. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated this as income under Section 56(2)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, adding back Rs. 19,18,875/- to the total income. The assessee's appeal

NARAIN LAL AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 744/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jun 2024AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

HUFs.\nHon'ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of Chandrakant H. Shah v. ITO[2009] 28 SOT\n315 (Mum.), explained the objects of section 56(2)(v) as under:\n“11.4....From the perusal of the Hon'ble Finance Minister's speech,... it is\napparent that this provision has been ... also\nnoteworthy that like gift tax, the basic exemption limit has also been prescribed in\nthe section and various exceptions provided in section 56(2)(v) of the Act which\nwere also existing in the like fashion in the erstwhile Gift-tax Act, 1958, and this\nfact also leads

ACIT CIRCLE 16(1), DELHI vs. KUL PRAKASH CHANDOK , DELHI

In the result, we do not\nfind any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby\ndismissed

ITA 1921/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2024AY 2015-16
Section 55(2)(aa)Section 56(2)(vii)

bonus shares received by assessee and bring the\nsame to tax under the head income from other sources by\nholding that section 56(2)(v) and (vii) cannot be invoked by\nassessing authority even when the assessing authority has\nrightly invoked the said provision as all the ingredients are\nsatisfied

SHRI BHADRESH RAMNIKLAL NAGDA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1), JAMNAGAR

In the result, ground number 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/RJT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 56

Pune Bench in Mubarak Gafur Korabu vs. ITO (supra) is extracted below: “8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. Section 56(2)(v) of the Act talks about where an individual or HUF received in an previous year from an person or persons on or after

DCIT CIRCLE - 16(1), NEW DELHI vs. ARUNA CHANDHOK, NEW DELHI

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA 387/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit, Vs. Smt Aruna Chandhok, Circle-16(1), H-30, Sainik Farms, New Delhi Delhi-110062 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaepc7861R

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 55(2)(aa)Section 56(2)(vii)

bonus shares received by assessee and bring the same to tax under the head income from other sources by holding that section 56(2)(v) and (vii) cannot be invoked by assessing authority even when the assessing authority has rightly invoked the said provision as all the ingredients are satisfied

ASHUTOSH SINHA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 643/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2023AY 2016-17
Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

following circulars and the judgments which in sum and substance are as under:- i. Section 56(2)(vii) which is the successor of section 56(2)(v) and 56(2)(vi) had been enacted with the specific purpose of curbing bogus capital building and money laundering transaction

SARITA KONDA,BHILAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 62/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 62/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sarita Konda Street No.09, Kohka Road, Shanti Nagar, Bhilai (C.G.) Pan : Aukps1814J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH

ANANYA AJAY MITTAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC6 (4), MUMBAI

ITA 6949/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6949/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6950/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 576/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, Ld. DR
Section 153ASection 2Section 6(1)(b)Section 6(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM 1

JCIT (OSD)-8(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ROYAL WESTERN INDIA TURF CLUB LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3744/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3742/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3743/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3744/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Jcit (Osd)-8(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Royal Western India Room No. 625, 6Th Floor, Turf Club Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi Mahalaxmi Race Course, Karve Marg, Mumbai- Mahalaxmi, Mumbai- 400020. 400034. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr8519H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sumit Lalchandani Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Revenue Appeals Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Mumbai Dated 27.02.2019 For Assessment Year 2013-14, Ay 2014-15 & Ay 2015-16 Respectively. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submits That The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Are Similar Especially Ground No. 1 & 2 For All The Years (Ay. 2013-14 To Ay. 2015-16) & The Additional Ground Is Only For Appeals Pertaining To Ay 2014-15 & Ay 2015-16 Which Is Related To Disallowance Made U/S 14A Of The

For Appellant: Shri Sumit LalchandaniFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 14A

Royal Western I Club Ltd gift received by an assessee it has specifically provided so by enacting the law. As per section 56(2)(v) the gifts received by an individual and HUF only are made liable to tax. Thereafter for the first time two other category of assessees were ... This is so, more particularly, because all gifts are capital receipt in nature and only certain gifts are made taxable. As provisions of Section 56(2)(v)(vi), (vii) and (viia) specifically covers the instances of gift which are taxable under the provisions of IT Act; and all other gifts

JCIT (OSD)-8(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ROYAL WESTERN INDIA TURF CLUB LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3743/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3742/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3743/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3744/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Jcit (Osd)-8(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Royal Western India Room No. 625, 6Th Floor, Turf Club Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi Mahalaxmi Race Course, Karve Marg, Mumbai- Mahalaxmi, Mumbai- 400020. 400034. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr8519H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sumit Lalchandani Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Revenue Appeals Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Mumbai Dated 27.02.2019 For Assessment Year 2013-14, Ay 2014-15 & Ay 2015-16 Respectively. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submits That The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Are Similar Especially Ground No. 1 & 2 For All The Years (Ay. 2013-14 To Ay. 2015-16) & The Additional Ground Is Only For Appeals Pertaining To Ay 2014-15 & Ay 2015-16 Which Is Related To Disallowance Made U/S 14A Of The

For Appellant: Shri Sumit LalchandaniFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 14A

Royal Western I Club Ltd gift received by an assessee it has specifically provided so by enacting the law. As per section 56(2)(v) the gifts received by an individual and HUF only are made liable to tax. Thereafter for the first time two other category of assessees were ... This is so, more particularly, because all gifts are capital receipt in nature and only certain gifts are made taxable. As provisions of Section 56(2)(v)(vi), (vii) and (viia) specifically covers the instances of gift which are taxable under the provisions of IT Act; and all other gifts

JCIT (OSD)-8(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ROYAL WESTERN INDIA TURF CLUB LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3742/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3742/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3743/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3744/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Jcit (Osd)-8(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Royal Western India Room No. 625, 6Th Floor, Turf Club Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi Mahalaxmi Race Course, Karve Marg, Mumbai- Mahalaxmi, Mumbai- 400020. 400034. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr8519H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sumit Lalchandani Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Revenue Appeals Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Mumbai Dated 27.02.2019 For Assessment Year 2013-14, Ay 2014-15 & Ay 2015-16 Respectively. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submits That The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Are Similar Especially Ground No. 1 & 2 For All The Years (Ay. 2013-14 To Ay. 2015-16) & The Additional Ground Is Only For Appeals Pertaining To Ay 2014-15 & Ay 2015-16 Which Is Related To Disallowance Made U/S 14A Of The

For Appellant: Shri Sumit LalchandaniFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 14A

Royal Western I Club Ltd gift received by an assessee it has specifically provided so by enacting the law. As per section 56(2)(v) the gifts received by an individual and HUF only are made liable to tax. Thereafter for the first time two other category of assessees were ... This is so, more particularly, because all gifts are capital receipt in nature and only certain gifts are made taxable. As provisions of Section 56(2)(v)(vi), (vii) and (viia) specifically covers the instances of gift which are taxable under the provisions of IT Act; and all other gifts

ANANYA AJAY MITTAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 6 (4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6950/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Piyush ChhajedFor Respondent: Ms. Sailaja Rai
Section 132(1)Section 6

made by Dr. Sampath on his behalf. The assessee was required to prove relation with Dr. Prakash Sampath as per the provision of section 56(2)(v) of the Act which he has failed to do so. The provision of section 56(2) (v) of the Act states as below ... assessee has stated that Dr. Prakash Sampath is a family friend and the relation "family friend" does not fall within the provisions of section 56(2)(v).” 5. Subsequently Assessing Officer received FTD reference from the USA authorities and it was found that assessee has received total credits

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2