“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)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida vs. M/S Ace Mega Structure Private Limited, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4115/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

Section 147Section 68

property in question was purchased in F.Y. 2015–16, and the sub-lease deed was duly executed on 30.04.2015.The provisions of Section 56(2)(x) relating to the difference between stamp duty value and ITA Nos.4115 & 4067/Del/2025 consideration in the case of any other person(Company) were made applicable only

Ace Mega Structures Private Limited, Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT/ACIT Cen Cir, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4067/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Section 147Section 68

Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 384/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.384/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16) Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi Vs. Assistant Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Pan: Agfpg8929H Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Hybrid Hearing) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 26/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 28/02/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 16/03/2022 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

lakhs and the sale consideration disclosed by the assessee of Rs.20 lakhs, i.e., 18.90 lakhs as income under the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO vide his order passed under section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act, dated 16/03/2022 determined the income ... Besides the difference amount in the above case is Rs. 18,90,000/- which is exceeding Rs. 50,000/-. Thus, the provisions of section 56 (2)(vii)(b) of the Act are squarely applicable in the case of the appellant. Although the appellant had contended the addition, no specific submissions/documents

Munirabai Mohammadi Kalolwala, Panchmahal vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1433/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

purchased immoveable consideration below jantry value determined as per Stamp Valuation Authority by amount exceeding Rs. 50,000/- which is in contravention to section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Assessment was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act and notice u/s. 148 was issued on 28-03-2019. Notice

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. M/S. Indic Wisdom Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 5922/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Jigar MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. D/R

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

transactions, the source of the share premium, and the identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders, as well as the applicability of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act; and (ii) a significant mismatch between the turnover disclosed in the Income-tax Return (ITR) and the turnover reported in the GSTR ... CBDT Circular No. F.No.173/149/2019-ITA-1 dated 10/10/2023. As per these directives, where the assessee is a DPIIT-recognised start-up, the applicability of section 56(2)(viib) is not to be examined by the Assessing Officer. Notwithstanding this, the Ld. AO proceeded to treat the entire share premium as unexplained

Tara Vati, Gurgaon, Haryana vs. Circle 3(1) Gurgaon, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6552/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

Ghanshyam HUF dated 16th July, 2009 relating to the taxability of interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation and also the amendments/provisions of section 56(2)(viii) introduced through Finance Act, 2009 effective from 01.04.2010 on the above issue, which the Ld. AO failed to do. The Ld. PCIT pointed ... audit objection observing that interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act of Rs. 3,97,56,460/- was chargeable to tax under section 56(2)(viii) of the Act and also referred to the decisions in the cases of Shri Manjeet Singh HUF v. UOI & Others

Delight Propcon Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1267/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.M/S Delight Propcon Private Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Limited Shop No. 68, Building Income Tax, No. 38, Surya House, Near Central Circle-Ii, New Cgo Pnb Devil Road, Khanpur, Complex, N. H. Iv, Nit New Delhi Faridabad, Haryana-121001 Pan: Aadcd6203E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By Sh. Suman Malik, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025 Order

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 68

invoked as the said section is applicable in the case of seller of the property only while the appellant is a buyer. Section 56(2)(vii)(a) and Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act are also not applicable in case of partnership firm or LLP and the assessee ... Section 56(2)(x) which may be applicable in case of partnership firm or LLP was introduced with effect from A.Y. 2018-19 while the present case is with regard to A.Y. 2015-16. Thus, in the absence of any statutory presumption the Ld. AO was under obligation to establish

Sapna Ankit Jain, Mumbai vs. Ward 20(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6283/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Sapna Ankit Jain Ito Ward-20(3)(1) 603/604, B Wing Piramal Chamber Anupam Chsl, Gas Lane Vs. Lal Baugh, Parel Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 012. Mumbai-400 012. Pan : Aoipj2279L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RaiFor Respondent: Ms. Dinkel Hariya

Section 56(2)(x)

pronouncement : 27/11/2025 O R D E R Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :- In the above cited appeal, Ld. AO made an addition under section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act which deals with difference between the value mentioned in sale deed and the value as per State Registration Authorities ... same was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). 2. Before the ITAT, the Ld. AR of the appellant has submitted that proviso to section 56(2)(x) of the Act is applicable if the appellant paid some advance by cheque in earlier year and allotment was made to appellant, then

Sada Bahadur Ramadhar Gupta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office - 30(2)(6), Mumbai

ITA 5998/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Sada Bahadur Ramadhar Gupta Ito-30(2)(6) 11, Neelkanth Society, Off Link Kautilya Bhavan Road, Malad West Vs. Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400 064. Complex, Bandra-E Mumbai-400 051. Pan : Aegpg7498N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vivek PerampurnaFor Respondent: Shri Akshay Shah

Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 56(2)Section 69

statement of a third party to the extent of Rs. 42 lakh. Second addition made by the Ld. AO relates to addition under section 56(2) of the I.T.Act which relates to difference between the value mentioned in the Sale Deed and value adopted by the State Authority. 2. From ... same, addition relating to on-money made by the Ld. AO is deleted. 6. As far as the second addition relating to section 56(2)(x) of the Act, which dealt with addition relating to difference between the Sale Deed value and value adopted by State Registration Authorities

Charanjeet Singh, Panipat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Panipat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6387/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2018-19 Sh. Charanjeet Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, H. No. 115, Baholi, Ward-1, Panipat Refinery, Panipat Panipat, Haryana Pan: Ddaps7473H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Suresh Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

Amita Handa, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 28(7), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 6283/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 69A

thus concluded that once the legislature has itself treated such amounts as exempt since involving the satisfied category or relatives under section 56(2) of the Act, no merit is found in the impugned addition of Rs.28,03,201/- which stands deleted in very terms. 2

Lokmani Sharma, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-68(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 6234/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)

Section 144Section 56(2)

fact had filed the original complaint alleging an expenditure of Rs. 21 lakhs on the occasion of the marriage which itself exempt under section 56(2) of the Act. This tribunal therefore finds no merit in the impugned addition made by both the lower authorities in the assessee’s hands

DCIT, Circle 3(1)(1), Bengaluru, Bmtc Building, Koramangala vs. Gtr Aluminium Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 165/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri Monish Sowkhar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

thereby making an addition to the extent of Rs. 5,22,24,080/- as income from other sources as per the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, wherein the AO held that the value at which the shares were issued by the assessee was highly inflated ... share and thus, the AO brought the difference of Rs. 479.12/- per share [i.e. Rs. 500/- minus Rs. 20.88/-] under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act on the 1,09,000 shares that were issued by the assessee. 5. The assessee being aggrieved by the said order of assessment

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

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)

Kanha Villa LLP, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 29(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 700/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

make the reference to the DVO and thereby obtaining an enhanced valuation of the said property. Needless to say, the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act were applied and an amount of Rs. 6,59,77,200/- was added as income from other sources. 2.2 The assessee ... without dealing with the individual grounds of appeal including the additional grounds in relation to addition of Rs. 6,59,77,200/- under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act is arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted and illegal. II. FOR THAT the Learned CIT (Appeals) arbitrarily dismissed the appeal

Solace Inn, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1623/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Uday Kishanrao Kakne, Sr. D.R

Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

opportunities but assessee has not responded the same, therefore the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 98,02,874/- as per provisos of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed

Ganga Bishan, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2179/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

ACIT, Chennai vs. Updater Services Limited, Chennai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by both the assessee and the Revenue, as well as the grounds raised in the cross-objections filed by the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical...

ITA 1616/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1339 /Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Updater Services Limited (Formerly Dcit, Known As Updater Services Private Vs. Central Circle -2(3), Limited), No.2/302-A, Uds Salai, Chennai. Off Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. [Pan:Aaacu-6845-J] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. K. Prasanna, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T

Section 115QSection 250Section 263Section 391Section 77A

case and in law. 2 The LA CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of transaction considered under section 56(2)(via) without appreciating the fact that there was a receipt of property, being shares of a company not being a company in which the public ... transferee, who had earlier issued the shares either for consideration which if found to be inadequate triggers the taxable event envisioned under Section 56(2)(via). 4. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee without appreciating the section does not foresee that the property reverend should

M/S. Updater Services Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Chennai

ITA 1339/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. K. Prasanna, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T

Section 115QSection 250Section 263Section 391Section 77A