← All Phrases

“Section 56(2)(x)(a)”

Section References (mined)Section 56Section 56(2)(x)(a)9 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 56(2)(x)(a) is ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT (374 ITR 108), cited in 364 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 56(2)(x)(a)

ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT
374 ITR 108 · 2015 · High Court
364
citing judgments

When computing disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act using Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, only investments that have actually yielded exempt income during the relevant previous year are to be considered for the calculation.

TM) Vishnu Jaiswal v. CIT
357 ITR 146 · 2013 · High Court
272
citing judgments

If the Assessing Officer has not conducted any investigation and thus has not discharged their burden of proof, any addition made by the AO is unsustainable and must be deleted.

CIT v. Ashwani Gupta
322 ITR 396 · 2010 · High Court
262
citing judgments

Proceedings become fatal if principles of natural justice are violated, such as when seized material is not provided to the assessee or cross-examination of a person whose statement the Assessing Officer relies upon is denied.

Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India
368 ITR 1 · 2014 · High Court
172
citing judgments

The issue of shares and share premium is a capital account transaction, not an income-generating event, therefore Chapter X (Transfer Pricing) provisions are not attracted to deem notional or hypothetical income from such transactions.

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. CIT
261 ITR 501 · 2003 · High Court
147
citing judgments

Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act cannot be invoked if the assessee has not been granted a deduction for the relevant liability in earlier years.

CIT v. Naresh Khattar (HUF)
261 ITR 664 · 2003 · High Court
75
citing judgments

An adverse inference cannot be drawn against an assessee solely based on uncorroborated loose papers found during a search or on a statement made during the search that is later retracted, unless the Assessing Officer conducts independent enquiry to establish the facts.

CIT v. Dinesh Jain HUF (Delhi HC)
352 ITR 629 · 2013 · High Court
71
citing judgments

To make an addition under Section 69B for undisclosed investment, the Revenue must first prove that an understatement of investment has occurred and that the assessee made the undisclosed investment. The burden of proof lies with the Revenue, and additions cannot be based merely on presumptions or assumptions without corroborative material.

Maria Fernandes Cheryl v. ITO (International Taxation)
123 Taxmann.com 252 · 2021 · ITAT
65
citing judgments

The amendment introducing a tolerance band (safe harbour) under section 50C, allowing a difference of up to 10% between actual sale consideration and stamp duty valuation, applies retrospectively. If the difference falls within this limit, the actual sale consideration is adopted as the full value of consideration for computing capital gains.

Judgments citing Section 56(2)(x)(a)

ITO 19.3.1, Mumbai vs. Varun Jaisingh Asher, Mumbai

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

ITA 8251/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Girish Agrawalito -19(3)(1), Mumbai Varun Jaisingh Asher Room No.405, 4Th Floor, Piramal Arkade Rise, 17Th Floor, 31-A, Vs. Chambers, Lower Parel Mumbai Carmichael Road, Cumballa Hills, 400012 Mumbai 400026 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aiapa1791N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri. Sushil Shengde, SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54FSection 56(2)(x)

right. The Ld. AO disregarded the tenancy agreement, and treating it as a colourable devise and tax the value of flat receipt under section 56(2)(x)(b) as income from other sources. Ignoring the nature as considering for surrender of tenancy rights being a capital asset. Ld. AO also ... assessee in the redeveloped building was not against any genuine consideration. Thus, he treated the receipt of the flat as gratuitous and invoked section 56(2)(x), taxing the stamp duty value of Rs.11.68 crore as income from other sources. From review of documentary evidence it is seen that Tenancy

Bimalendu Saha, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-8(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2647/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2647/Chny/2025 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Year: 2020-21 Bimalendu Saha, The Dy. Commissioner Of No.23, Thirumalai Nagar Road, Vs. Income Tax, Alwarthiru Nagar, Non Corporate Circle-8(1), Chennai – 600 087. Chennai. Pan: Aetpb 6446A

For Appellant: Shri S. Velapandiar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 56(2)(x)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘डी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Saurabh Goyal, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CC-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal in assessment year 2020-21 is treated as allowed

ITA 38/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y. : 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri Saurabh Goyal, The Dcit, House N O. 309, Sector 9, Vs Central Circle-1, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ajapg4217C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Monga, Ca Revenue By : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Monga, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, CIT DR
Section 10(2)Section 115BSection 132Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(x)

held that gift received from the HUF is taxable because HUF does not fall within the ambit of definition of ‘Relatives’ provided in Section 56(2)(x)(a) read with 56(2)(vii) of the Act. With regard to the cash found from the residence of the assessee in assessment

Saurabh Goyal, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal in assessment year 2020-21 is treated as allowed

ITA 37/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y. : 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri Saurabh Goyal, The Dcit, House N O. 309, Sector 9, Vs Central Circle-1, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ajapg4217C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Monga, Ca Revenue By : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Monga, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, CIT DR
Section 10(2)Section 115BSection 132Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(x)

held that gift received from the HUF is taxable because HUF does not fall within the ambit of definition of ‘Relatives’ provided in Section 56(2)(x)(a) read with 56(2)(vii) of the Act. With regard to the cash found from the residence of the assessee in assessment

Jesus Calls, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

In the result, disallowance made by the lower authorities is deleted and appeal of the assessee for AY 2019-20 is allowed

ITA 798/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.796/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2019-20 आयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.797/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2020-21 आयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.798/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr. V.Nagaprasad, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. M.K.Biju, CIT DR
Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)

have been made in the case of the assessee and the ground raised by the assessee is hereby allowed. 7.3 The provisions of section 56(2)(x)(a) stipulates that cash gifts received in excess of Rs.50,000/- are to be treated as income u/s.56

Jesus Calls, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

In the result, disallowance made by the lower authorities is deleted and appeal of the assessee for AY 2019-20 is allowed

ITA 797/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.796/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2019-20 आयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.797/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2020-21 आयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.798/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr. V.Nagaprasad, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. M.K.Biju, CIT DR
Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)

have been made in the case of the assessee and the ground raised by the assessee is hereby allowed. 7.3 The provisions of section 56(2)(x)(a) stipulates that cash gifts received in excess of Rs.50,000/- are to be treated as income u/s.56

Jesus Calls, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

In the result, disallowance made by the lower authorities is deleted and appeal of the assessee for AY 2019-20 is allowed

ITA 796/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.796/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2019-20 आयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.797/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2020-21 आयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.798/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr. V.Nagaprasad, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. M.K.Biju, CIT DR
Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)

have been made in the case of the assessee and the ground raised by the assessee is hereby allowed. 7.3 The provisions of section 56(2)(x)(a) stipulates that cash gifts received in excess of Rs.50,000/- are to be treated as income u/s.56

Abul Wais Abdus Salam, Mumbai vs. ITO41(1)(1), Kautilya Bhavan

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

ITA 515/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2021-21 Abul Wais Abdus Salam Ito, Ward-41(1)(1), Mumbai Gala No. 17, Mbk Compound M/S A-1 Trading Co, Khairani Vs. Road, Sakinaka, Mumbai- 400072. Pan: Aaapa 7242 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, SR. DR
Section 154Section 234BSection 56(2)(x)

mentioned that there is gift from his brother of Rs. 20,00,000/- which is an exempt gift under the provisions of section 56(2)(x)(a) of the Act. However, the above amount was shown in Column No. 16(d) stating that amounts not credited to the profit

Bito-Lagertechnik Bittmann Gmbh, Garmany vs. ACIT Circle 1(1)(2), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2440/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 197Section 234ASection 234BSection 270ASection 48Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

case and in law, Ld. AO/DRP has erred in charging income amounting to INR 12,18,33,600 to tax under Section 56(2)(x)(a) of the Act [without specifying the applicable sub-clause of Section 56(2)(x)] as: (a) the sum of money in the Appellant case ... such money has been admittedly received as consideration towards the sale of shares and therefore beyond the ambit of sub-clause (a) of Section 56(2)(x); and (b) the Appellant has admittedly not ‘received’ any immoveable property or ‘property’ as defined in the Explanation below Section 56(2)(x