← All Phrases

“Section 56(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 56Section 56(2)1,770 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 56(2) is Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. ITO (322 ITR 283), cited in 1,283 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 56(2)

Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. ITO
322 ITR 283 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,283
citing judgments

The interest income earned by a cooperative society from investing its surplus funds in fixed deposits with banks is not "derived from" its eligible business activities and is taxable as "income from other sources" under Section 56, thus not qualifying for deduction under Section 80P.

Pr. CIT v. Totagars
395 ITR 611 · 2017 · High Court
1,074
citing judgments

Interest income earned by a cooperative society from surplus deposits or investments held with a cooperative bank is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act.

Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT
431 ITR 1 · 2021 · Supreme Court
999
citing judgments

Section 80P(4) serves as a proviso to Section 80P(1) and (2), excluding only cooperative banks that are cooperative societies and possess an RBI license for banking business. Its purpose is to exclude cooperative banks operating like commercial banks that lend money to the public.

CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.
332 ITR 167 · 2011 · High Court
897
citing judgments

The Commissioner cannot revise an assessment under Section 263 merely because the assessment order does not explicitly reflect an inquiry, or because the Commissioner holds a different opinion. An inquiry, even if considered inadequate, or an assessment based on a plausible view by the Assessing Officer after due examination, does not automatically make the order erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.

Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. v. ITO
230 Taxmann 309 · 2015 · High Court
527
citing judgments

A cooperative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) if it is engaged in cooperative activities. It also clarifies the allowability of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income received from investments made in cooperative banks, after duly considering the Supreme Court's decision in Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd.

Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. v. ACIT
397 ITR 1 · 2017 · Supreme Court
499
citing judgments

A co-operative credit society engaged in banking business with the general public, accepting deposits from non-members and advancing loans to non-members, is treated as a co-operative bank. Such a society falls under the exclusionary clause of Section 80P(4) and is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

Totgar's Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. ITO
188 Taxmann 282 · 2010 · Supreme Court
486
citing judgments

Interest income earned by a co-operative society from investments, particularly with co-operative banks, is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P as it is not attributable to the core business activities of the society and constitutes "other income", not "profits and gains of business".

ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd.
343 ITR 329 · 2012 · High Court
438
citing judgments

For exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 263, the Commissioner must first find that the Assessing Officer's order is erroneous and unsustainable in law, as this is a condition precedent. An order is not erroneous merely because two views are possible, or if the Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's permissible view, or to simply remit the matter for further enquiries.

Judgments citing Section 56(2)

Pawan Kumar, Karnal Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Karnal Haryana

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

ITA 3891/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Roypawan Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hn-24/4, Dera Begampura, Karnal. Vpo – Gudha, Tehsil Gharaunda, Karnal – 132 114 (Haryana). (Pan : Boqpk1912N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 Date Of Order : 11.02.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 26.10.2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee From The Date Of First Posting On 27.03.2024 & Subsequently Several Hearing Dates Were Given But None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. We Proceeded To Adjudicate The Issue With The Assistance Of Ld. Dr Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 28Section 56(2)(vii)

Singh (2019) 415 ITR 215(P&H). The above said decisions are pronounced by the Hon’ble High Courts after the amendment of section 56(2)(vii) r.w.s. 57 (4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) Therefore, respectfully following the above decision, we are inclined

Techpark Hotels Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. Addi. CIT Special Range-9, New Delhi

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

ITA 9450/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumartechpark Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Addl. Cit, Ground Floor, Central Wing, Special Range-9, Thapar House 124, Janpath, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aabce5833H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Shri Tavish Verma, Adv. Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra Sr. Dr Department By Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against Order Dated 11.09.2019 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2017 Of The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Declaring Loss Of Rs.23,06,28,106/- On 30.11.2015. Notice U/S 143(2) Dated 22.09.2016 Was Issued. Notices U/S 142(1) Were Issued. Sh. Nikhil Agarwal & Shri Nirmal Malpani, Ca Appeared & Filed Details. On Completion Of Proceedings, Ld. Ao Vide Order Dated Techpark Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234DSection 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

order passed by the assessing officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). Re: Disallowance made under section 56(2) (vii) (b) of the Act 2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in affirming the addition of Rs.9 ... account of alleged excessive premium received on issuance of shares in terms of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding that the premium charged by the appellant on shares issued was unjustified and unsatisfactory without considering

Darshini Amit Sharma, Daman vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Daman

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1345/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1345/Srt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Darshini Amit Sharma बनाम / Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Daman, Daman 207, Spectra Housing Society, Veera Desai Road, Andheri West, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400053 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Blhps5706E (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलार्थी ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agrawal, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16/03/2026 19/03/2026 Order The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As “Nfac”), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)") Dated 30.09.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act") & Relates To

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 50(1)Section 50C(1)Section 56(2)(x)

Rs.90,77,000/-. The difference of Rs.7,10,000/- was added to the income of the assessee in terms of the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. 4. The solitary contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee before me was that the difference between actual consideration ... stamp duty value was less than 10% of the consideration received and in terms of the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, no addition needed to be made to the income of the assessee. He contended that this argument was raised before the AO who rejected

Praveen Sanjiv, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-7(3), Chennai

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

ITA 3834/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3834/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Praveen Sanjiv, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 45, W Block, 7Th Street, Anna Non Corporate Ward 7(3), Nagar, Chennai 600 040. Chennai. [Pan: Fzzps0216R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.12.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Ground No. 1 Raised By The Assessee Is General In Nature & Requires No Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made on account of variation in respect of issue under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] and alternatively under section 69 of the Act. 4. Brief facts relating ... sources by the assessee issuing show cause notice as is evident from page 4 & 5 of the assessment order, applied provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, added the variation in respect of sale consideration to the total income of the assessee vide pafra

Sophia Mushtaq Panirwala, G T Road Mumbai vs. ACIT, Assessment Unit, NFAC

ITA 7242/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21 Sophia Mushtaq Panirwala Vs Assistant Commissioner Of 7-D Billimoria Hosg, Income Tax, Proctor Road, Grant Road, Assessment Unit, Nfac, Mumbai - 400007 New Delhi - 110002 (Pan: Aigpp2287C) Appellant Respondent Present For: Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhujhunwala, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradipsinh Saktavat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1080505962(1) Dated 10.09.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 13.08.2022 For Ay 2020-21. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. “Whether The Id Cit-A,Nfac Was Justified By Passing The Order Without Affording Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard & Personal Hearing Despite The Admitted Facts That There Are So Many Glitches On Portal Resulting Details/Submissions Couldn'T Be Uploaded. 2. Whether The Ld Cit-A(Nfac) Was Justified By Upholding The Assessment Order On The Issue Of Invoking Section 56(2) On The Difference Of Rs.2,28,41,000/-Due To Stamp Valuation & Declared Consideration Without Considering The Nature

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhujhunwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradipsinh Saktavat, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 69

couldn't be uploaded. 2. Whether the Ld CIT-A(NFAC) was justified by upholding the Assessment order on the issue of invoking section 56(2) on the difference of Rs.2,28,41,000/-due to stamp valuation and declared consideration without considering the nature 2 Sophia Mushtaq Panirwala

Shalby Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1005/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(ib)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

fair value of equity of the assessee company worked out by an independent firm of chartered accountant. The assessee company also pointed that section 56(2)(ib) of the Act in respect of additional of securities premium charged in excess of fair value of shares. The amount charged as securities

Asgarali Mazharali Manihar, Ankleshwar vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Bharuch

ITA 1323/SRT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 56(2)(x)

assessee’s 1/7th share, which was chargeable to tax under the head ‘income from other sources’ as per the provisions of Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. Hence, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee. Assessee made a reply that the sale deed was cancelled ... cancellation deed registered as document no.14011 of 2022, dated 26.09.2022. Therefore, the question of invoking Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act does not arise. This explanation was not accepted by the AO whereby made addition of Rs.39,31,428/- and demanded tax thereon. 3. Aggrieved against the assessment

Shri Ajay Mayor, Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1607/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

rejected the argument that the issue was merely a debatable one, holding that the receipt from the foreign trust was clearly taxable under section 56(2)(vii) of the Act as income from other sources since it was received without consideration. The CIT(Appeals) also referred to the decision

Mahmood Hussain Syed, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

ITA 541/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

considering the fair mark et value of business asset forming part of stock in trade by applying the deeming provisions of section 56(2) (vii) (b) and also ignoring the circumstances involved at the time of purchase where seller had malafide intentions. 5. For these and other ground which ... property, as per the provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and addition of Rs. 2,03,87,170/- under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 towards the difference between purchase consideration and the stamp duty value of the property

Suresh Kumar Pal, Mumbai vs. ITO Wad-22(3), Mumbai

ITA 723/MUM/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250(6)Section 56(2)(vi)

following grounds of appeal: “1.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT erred in making addition under section 56(2)(vi)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.27,57,665/- being Assessment Year 2017-2018 difference between value of purchase consideration

Mr. Shridhar Gangaram Anumandala, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(3)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 8391/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. Anbuselvan (Sr. DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 50Section 55ASection 56(2)(x)Section 69

During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO made an addition of Rs. 1,18,80,887/- under section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act and a further addition of Rs. 1,17,61,180/- on account of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act, aggregating ... tolerance limit of 10% as provided under section 56 of the Act, and therefore the addition of Rs. 1,18,80,887/- under section 56(2)(x) of the Act, representing the difference between the agreement value and the value adopted by the registration authority, was not warranted

Sujata Prakash Jawale, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 7572/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 56(2)(vii)

erred in confirming the addition of Rs.44,75,913/- without appreciating the fact the applicability of section 56(2)(vii)(b) is prospective from 01.04.2014, whereas the impugned transaction pertains to F.Y. 2010-11 relevant to A.Y. 2011-12., the provision could not have been invoked for the year under ... Ld.AO accordingly, issued show-cause notice calling upon assessee to submit its response as to why the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) should not be applied to the facts of the case. Assessee vide its submissions dated 26/09/2016 submitted that the original agreement of purchase was entered

Hitesh Sharma, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Palampur, Palampur

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

ITA 1487/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

notice within limitation, addition of Rs.93,00,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69 und addition of Rs.90,33,000/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) on alleged difference in stamp duty value each of which deserved independent consideration on merits and as such the order passed is arbitrary ... also did not examine the additions of Rs. 93,00,000 under section 69 and Rs. 90,33,000 under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii). It was thus argued that the impugned order being non-speaking and passed in violation of principles of natural justice deserves

Abbas Fakhruddin, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 20(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 8297/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms. Rupal Kaku, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (Sr. DR.)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

property as per stamp duty valuation authority, has been determined according to the SRO at Rs.67,56,275/- and thus the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, attracts in the case”, the case of the Assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing

Sidh Farms, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 55(5), Delhi

In the result, the addition made by the Ld

ITA 6672/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6672/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम M/S Sidh Farms Income Tax Officer, 32, Dsidc Jhilmil Industrial Area, Vs. Ward 55(5), Room No.401, Delhi – 110095. D-Block, Vikas Bhawan, Pan No.Acofs1102P I.P. Estate, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

order. 1 1.2 The aggrieved assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds challenging this action. 2. Before us, the Ld. AR argued that section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act pertains to only an individual “or a Hindu undivided family”, whereas this case pertains to a partnership firm ... have carefully considered the rival submissions and have gone through the record before us. We find from a perusal of the language of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act that it is specifically applicable to individuals and HUFs. It is thus clear that since the assessee

JCIT, (OSD), Circle 1(1), Raipur vs. Platinum World Hospitality Private Limited, Raipur

In the result appeal filed by the appellant is allowed

ITA 130/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.130/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd), Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 68

share premium charged are commercial decisions of the management and cannot be questioned by the Revenue unless the specific anti-abuse provisions of section 56(2)(viib) apply, which is not the case here. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Standard Vacuum Oil Co. (59 ITR 685) affirmed that share premium

Dinkar Bhanudas Narkhede, Dharangaon vs. ITO Ward-2, Khamgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 624/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.624/Nag/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dinkar Bhanudas Narkhede, Vs. Income Tax Officer, National Highway No.6, Ward-2, Khamgaon At Kund Bk, Post Dharangaon, Malkapur, Dist. Buldhana Maharashtra – 443 101 Pan : Afwpn6070J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(x)

Rs.1,30,00,000. For the difference amount of Rs.33,98,889/-, ld. Assessing Officer show caused the assessee for the invocation of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The assessee requested for referring the matter to the Valuation Officer. However, due to the assessment getting time barred ... less than the purchase consideration of Rs.96,01,111/- paid by the assessee and therefore there remains no justification for invoking section 56(2)(x) of the Act. I therefore delete the addition of Rs.4,90,889/- made by the Assessing Officer. 6. Since I have already deleted the addition

Asirvad Micro Finance Limited, Anna Salai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1139/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1139/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. P.R. Prasanna Varma, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N., CIT
Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

allegation that the assessee has any undisclosed receipts towards share premium. The Ld. AR further submitted that the intention behind introduction of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act is to curtail the unaccounted money received as share premium and in assessee's case the A.O has made the addition ... tune of Rs. 27,53,76,209/-. The contention of the assessee is that the primary criteria for invoking section 56(2)(viib) of the Act i.e, unaccounted money being infused is not established by the A.O. The assessee further contends that the A.O is not correct in Asirvad Micro

Noorul Hasan Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 25(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7206/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarnoorul Hasan Shaikh Vs. Ito- Ward 25(3)(1) 4, Laxmi Bhavan, P.D’Mello Room 118, 1St Floor, Road. Kautilya Bhavan, Carnac Bunder, Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai - 400001 Bandra (East), Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Apaps5077A (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Dinkle H. Hariya – Advocate Revenue By Shri Brajendra Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 23.12.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below: “1. The Order Is Bad In Law, Illegal & Without Jurisdiction

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

extraneous considerations; (iii) Ignored relevant material and considerations as submitted by the Appellant; (iv) Erroneously come to the conclusion that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) were attracted; and (v) Ignoring that the case was covered by the First Proviso to section 56(2

Bhopal Singh Chaudhary, Srinagar Garhwal vs. ITO Srinagar, Srinagar Garhwal

ITA 5/DDN/2026[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Dehradun09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 50CSection 56(2)

Sale Deed, the market value of same was determined at INR 29,73,000/- by the stamp value authorities, therefore, in terms of section 56(2) of the Act, the assessee should be taxed in the hands of the assessee as Income from other sources and which has escaped assessment