← All Phrases

“Section 56(2)(b)”

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

The decision most relied on for Section 56(2)(b) is CIT v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd. (331 ITR 192), cited in 152 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 56(2)(b)

CIT v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd.
331 ITR 192 · 2011 · High Court
152
citing judgments

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax cannot exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer has taken one of two possible views on a debatable issue during assessment proceedings.

Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.
6 SCC 121 · 2009 · Reported
140
citing judgments

This case establishes the principles for calculating compensation in motor accident and personal injury claims, including the selection of the multiplier based on the deceased's age, assessment of loss of dependency, consideration of future prospects, and deductions for personal expenses.

CIT v. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd.
341 ITR 166 · 2012 · High Court
93
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer's order is deemed prejudicial to the interests of the revenue under Section 263 if, due to its erroneous nature, the revenue suffers a loss of lawfully payable tax. This principle applies where the Assessing Officer fails to conduct proper enquiry.

CIT v. Aruna Luthra
252 ITR 76 · 2001 · High Court
87
citing judgments

Rectification under Section 154 is permissible based on a subsequent judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court or the Supreme Court. Such a judgment clarifies the law as it always stood, thereby revealing a mistake apparent from the record.

CIT v. DLF Ltd.
350 ITR 555 · 2013 · High Court
87
citing judgments

Where the Assessing Officer has taken a plausible view based on sufficient details and disclosures on record, the assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue to invoke revisionary powers under Section 263.

ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd.
20 Taxmann.com 587 · 2012 · High Court
78
citing judgments

Under Section 263, the PCIT/CIT cannot set aside an assessment order for mere 'insufficiency of enquiry' or by remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The PCIT/CIT must conduct necessary inquiries and themselves establish how the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue before passing a revision order.

CIT v. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd.
333 ITR 547 · 2011 · High Court
76
citing judgments

The Commissioner cannot exercise revisional power under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer (AO) has adopted one of the courses permissible in law or where two views are possible and the AO has adopted one of them. A regular assessment made under Section 143(3) carries a presumption of application of mind, and the CIT must demonstrate how the AO's order is unsustainable in law and prejudicial to revenue, not merely disagree with the view.

Shri Dilipkumar Lalwani and Others (107 Appeals) 21 19.12 In Pr. CIT v. Vinita Chaurasia
394 ITR 758 · 2017 · High Court
71
citing judgments

The amended provisions of Section 153C require that documents found during a search must 'pertain to' or 'relate to' the assessee. The High Court held that this requirement does not apply to searches conducted prior to the amendment.

Judgments citing Section 56(2)(b)

Ecotech Builders Private Limited, Noida vs. Pr, CIT, Noida

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1601/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Yr: 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(b)

under Rule 11UA(1)(c), whereas this is case of valuation of unquoted shares under Rule 11UA(1)(b), which attracted provision of Section 56(2)(b) of the Act and Assessing Officer has failed to examine the issue during the course of assessment proceedings and passed a cryptic order

Bittu Arora, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-29(4), Kolkata.

In the result, ITA No. 1144/KOL/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1144/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Anikesh Banerjee & Sri Girish Agrawal

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 56(2)(b)Section 56(2)(vii)

FNAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,59,49,535 made by the Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 although the said provisions were not applicable to the facts of the Appellant Assessee. 6. That the Appellant Assessee

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

considering the similar grounds of appeal has taken a view that agricultural land purchased by assessee is not covered by the provisions of section 56(2)(b)(vii)(b). The relevant part of decision of Pune Bench in Mubarak Gafur Korabu vs. ITO (supra) is extracted below: “8. We have ... bullion. 10. In the totality of above definitions, we hold that agricultural land purchased by assessee is not governed by the provisions of section 56(2)(b) of the Act being not capital asset and also because of the fact that the assessee was holding it as stock on trade

Dilip Talakshi Vora, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax-20, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1613/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdilip Talakshi Vora Vs. Principal Commissioner 3102, Spring Mills, Island Of Income Tax-20, City Centre, G.D. Room No. 418, 4 Th Floor, Ambekar Marg Near Piramal Chambers, Wadala Telephone Lal Baug, Parel, Exchange, Dadar (East) Mumbai - 400012 Mumbai – 400014 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabpv0804C Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Paresh Shaparia Respondent By : Riddhi Mishra Date Of Hearing 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 05.10.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit(A), Mumbai-20, Dated 24.03.2023 For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “I. Order Passed U/S 263 Is Bad In Law: 1. The Ld. Pr.Cit Erred On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case In Passing The Order U/S 263 Which Is Bad In Law. 2. The Ld Pr.Cit Erred In Passing The Order U/S 263 By Setting Aside Ao'S Order & Directing To Inquire Into The Claim Both In Terms Of Section 56(2)(X) & Section 43Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Ld Pr. Cit Erred In Treating The Order Passed By Ao. U/S 143(3) As Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue In Relation To Purchase Of Property I.E Flat No. E-601 At Ambe Shraddha Kamothe In Panvel (Herein Referred As Said Flat) For Applicability Of Section 56(2)(X) & Section 43Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: Riddhi Mishra
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43CSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

P a g e | 1 Dilip Talakshi Vora Vs. Pr.CIT-20 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Rukshana Begum, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 2(2), Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3814/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargrukshana Begum, Vs. Ito, W/O. Shri Khalid, R/O. Ward-2(2), 1059, Church Gali, Kaila Ghaziabad Bhatta, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aeepf0220A

For Appellant: Ms. Hasneeta Matta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 50C

keeping aside the amount of stamp duty paid Rs. 2,63,000/-. I am of the considered view that the provision of section 56(2)(b) of the Act, applicable to the case of the purchaser, is applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2014 from AY 2014-15 onwards and not present