“Section 56(2)(xi)”

Section References (mined)Section 56Section 56(2)(xi)5 judgments

ALBERT GNANA SELVAM DANIEL,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NON CORP WARD 1(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 2393/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Guru Prasad, Addl. C.I.T

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 17(3)Section 56(2)(xi)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र

SUBRAMANIAN KATHIRSEN,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (1), AURANGABAD

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

ITA 765/CHNY/2025[19-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Sept 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.765/Chny/2025 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 56(2)(xi)Section 89Section 89(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग

VAIDYANATHAN KALAIVANI,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1542/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon'Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1542/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Vaidyanathan Kalaivani, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 Chennai. No.5/61, Plot No.43, Ii Cross Street, Sea Avenue, Neelankarai, Tiruvanmiyur 600 041. Chennai. Pan: Agvpk 1515D (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. A.S. Sriraman, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Niay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2024 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Chennai In Order No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023-24/1063798645(1),Dated 31.03.2024 For

For Appellant: Shri. A.S. Sriraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Niay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 263Section 56(2)

Rs.3,00,00,000/- received by the assessee as income under the head 'income from other sources” in terms of Section 56(2) (xi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

SUDHAKAR RATAN SHANKER GAUTAM,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1033/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1033/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sudhakar Ratan Shanker The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Gautam Ward-1(1)(3) V/S. F-93, Tirthdham Apartment Ahmedabad Nr. Surel Flats, Bodakdev Ahmedabad – 380 054 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Ahapg 7698 F (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kushal Fofaria, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Bhavna Gupta Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Fofaria, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Bhavna Gupta Singh, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 17(3)Section 17(3)(i)Section 234ASection 270A

loss of employment, and should be treated as a capital receipt. 5.2. The AR contended that even after insertion of section 56(2)(xi) of the Act with effect from 01-04-2019, the Pune Bench of the Tribunal has decided in favour of assessee in case of Ashok Raghunathrao ... salary income Sudhakar Ratan Shankar Gautam vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2018-19 or can be treated as a non-taxable capital receipt. Section 56(2)(xi), introduced w.e.f. 1st April 2019, deals with compensation received or receivable in connection with the termination or modification of terms of employment contracts. However

PADMA RAO,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 61(1), DELHI

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

ITA 2759/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri V. K Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 28Section 4Section 56(2)(xi)

approach adopted against the Appellant by the Income Tax Department [Le. invocation of section 28(ii)(e) against the Appellant or alternatively, section 56(2)(xi)against the Appellant] is against fundamental prudence of Income tax laws. It is settled law that heads of income are mutually exclusive ... strongly relied upon the provisions of section 28(ii)(e) of the Act. The Assessing Officer also drew support from the provisions of section 56(2)(xi) of the Act and made addition of Rs. 3 crores. 9. Assessment was challenged before the ld. CIT(A) but without any success