← All Phrases

“Section 56(2)(ii)”

Section References (mined)Section 56Section 56(2)(ii)9 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 56(2)(ii) is Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona (89 Taxmann.com 127), cited in 130 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 56(2)(ii)

Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona
89 Taxmann.com 127 · 2018 · Supreme Court
130
citing judgments

The claim of depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act for assets used by charitable trusts is permissible, affirming the Bombay High Court's view that such a claim does not amount to a 'double benefit'.

CIT v. Radico Khaitan Ltd.
274 ITR 354 · 2005 · High Court
56
citing judgments

Where an assessee has mixed funds (borrowed and interest-free) and makes interest-free advances, it is presumed that such advances are made from interest-free funds if sufficient interest-free funds are available. This principle guides the disallowance of interest on borrowed capital under Section 36(1)(iii) if funds are diverted for non-business purposes without business expediency.

Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. v. CIT
251 ITR 329 · 2001 · Supreme Court
53
citing judgments

Income earned during the construction phase of a project, which has a direct and inextricable nexus with the project's setting up, constitutes a capital receipt and reduces the project's cost, rather than being taxable as revenue income. This applies to incidental income like interest on funds (e.g., share capital, grants) temporarily parked before being utilized for the specific project.

CIT v. Nirbheram Deluram
91 Taxmann 181 · 1997 · Supreme Court
35
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) can make enhancements to an assessment during appellate proceedings, provided such enhancements do not amount to introducing an entirely new head of income.

Cinestaan Entertainment (P) Ltd. v. ITO
106 Taxmann.com 300 · 2019 · High Court
28
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer must accept the fair market value of shares determined by the assessee using a prescribed method like DCF or NAV, and cannot substitute their own valuation, as Section 56(2)(viib) is a deeming provision not open to broad interpretation.

Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai and Another
7 SCC 421 · 2017 · Reported
26
citing judgments

The decision in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. [2017] 7 SCC 421 is referred to in the context of the rule of consistency, particularly concerning the application of provisions related to income calculation and disallowances.

DIT v. Vishwa Jagriti Mission
262 CTR 558 · 2013 · High Court
19
citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on capital assets for charitable trusts even if expenditure was allowed as deduction, as long as it doesn't amount to double deduction. The principles of commercial accountancy apply when computing business income.

DDIT (IT-II), Pune v. Serum Institute of India Ltd.
56 Taxmann.com 1 · 2015 · ITAT
15
citing judgments

Section 206AA, which mandates a higher TDS rate for non-residents without a PAN, cannot be applied retrospectively if tax was already deducted at lower rates as per DTAA provisions.

Judgments citing Section 56(2)(ii)

Gopal Muwel, Manawar vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhar

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

ITA 554/IND/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshigopal Muwel, Ito बनाम/ Morad, Manawar, Dhar Vs. Dhar (Pan: Caapm6256Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Lucky Singhal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 253Section 44ASection 57

Rs.57,86,200/- in the return of income. The Ld. AO in the “Impugned Assessment Order” has observed as follows:- (i) Provision of section 56(2)(ii) is reproduced (ii) Assessee has not offered the rental income under business head. The same is offered under the head “Other sources ... earning of other source income. Further, the appellant has claimed depreciation of Rs. 5,97,835/-, which is allowable in terms of section 56(2)(ii) & 56(2)(ii)r.w.s. 57(ii) of the Act. The appellant cannot be denied deduction of Rs. 34,91,240/-, therefore, in the facts

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

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, "B" JAIPUR डॉ. एस.सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Deb Prasanna Choudhury, Kolkata vs. ADIT/DCIT (It) - 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2199/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Striton Properties Private Limited (Erstwhile Mars Hotels and Resorts Private Limited), Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3945/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant S. Pathak, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. A/R
Section 32

2)] of section 32 and subject to the provisions of 81[section 38] ;” 11.1. This has to be read along with Section 56(2)(ii) & (iii) of the Act, which read as under:- “Income from other sources. 56. (1) Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from ... income has been shown by the assessee, I.T.A. No. 3944/Mum/2024 & I.T.A. No. 3945/Mum/2024 7 the assessee has not fulfilled the mandatory condition of Section 56(2)(ii) & (iii) and Section 57(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the action of the AO cannot be faulted with. This Ground is accordingly dismissed

Striton Properties Private Limited (Erstwhile Mars Hotel and Resorts Private Limited), Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3944/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant S. Pathak, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. A/R
Section 32

2)] of section 32 and subject to the provisions of 81[section 38] ;” 11.1. This has to be read along with Section 56(2)(ii) & (iii) of the Act, which read as under:- “Income from other sources. 56. (1) Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from ... income has been shown by the assessee, I.T.A. No. 3944/Mum/2024 & I.T.A. No. 3945/Mum/2024 7 the assessee has not fulfilled the mandatory condition of Section 56(2)(ii) & (iii) and Section 57(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the action of the AO cannot be faulted with. This Ground is accordingly dismissed

Aurelia Housing Co-Operative Society Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-49(4), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1138/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1138/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Aurelia Housing Co-Perative Income Tax Officer, Ward-49(4), Society Ltd. Vs Kolkata Premises No.-30 2222, Plot No. Cd-19 Action Area-I Major Arterial Road New Town Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aaaba0803F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Prabhas Roy, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 22/08/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. On The Previous Occasion When The Case Was Fixed For Hearing On 07/02/2024 & 23/01/2024, The Assessee Sought Adjournment. Today, There Is No Appearance. We, Therefore, Decide To Adjudicate The Appeal On The Basis Of Available Record & Hearing The Ld. D/R. 3. The Sole Issue Involved In The Instant Appeal Is The Disallowance Of Depreciation Claimed Of Rs. 33,69,260/-. Facts In Brief Are That The 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prabhas Roy, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 2Section 250Section 36Section 57

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE

Kanakia Gruhnirman Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-10(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3219/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blekanakia Gruhnirman Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – 10(1)(2) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Kanakia Future City, Cts No. 101 Behind Dr. L. H. Hiranandani Hospital Mumbai - 400020 Near Ayyappa Temple, Tirandaz Powai, Mumbai – 400076 Pan: Aaack1572C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(ii)

composite rent income received under the head house property should not be brought to tax under the head other sources in view of section 56(2)(ii) of the Act. 6. In response, assessee furnished a reply wherein it has been stated that lease rental is taxable under the head

Encorp E-Service Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1883/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH „B‟, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. PRASHANT

Encorp E-Service Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1882/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH „B‟, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. PRASHANT