← 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)

Sejal Milan Vora, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4708/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Jigar MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Pushkaraj Bhangepatil, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

revised return on 31.03.2019 thereby declaring income of Rs.12,11,380/-, wherein I had disclosed income of Rs. 8,27,000/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 2. Subsequently, my case was reopened vide issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act and concluded vide assessment order

Shilpaben Hiteshbhai Sakaria, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2)(6), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 686/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Shilpaben Hiteshbhai Sakaria, Ito-1(2)(6), 17, Hetal Nagar Society, Near Income Tax Office, Anavil Navyug Collage, Rander Road, Vs. Business Business Centre, Surat-395005. Adajan Hazira Road, Adajan, Surat-395007. Pan No. Aqqps 4288 Q Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Himanshu Gandhi, CA
Section 234ASection 270ASection 56(2)(vii)

Ground 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.1410000 under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) on Income Tax Act, 1961 Shilpaben Hiteshbhai Sakaria 2 Shilpaben Hiteshbhai Sakaria Ground 2. On the facts and circumstances ... agreement fixing date will be considered for the purpose of as on agreement fixing date will be considered for the purpose of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) which is below the purchase consideration. section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) which is below the purchase consideration. section 56(2

Kbj Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst Commisioner of Income Tax- 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1837/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 133(6)Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “E” BENCH :: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kbj Developers Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and

ITA 1409/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, Ld. CA
Section 133(6)Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

that though differential amount between the stamp duty valuation and actual sale consideration received, is liable to be taxed, as per provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Act, however, enabling provision in the Act has been introduced only w.e.f. 01/04/2017, whereas the relevant assessment year herein

Sanjay, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward 4(1)-Gurgaon, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5952/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 5952/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Sanjay Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Ca, M. R. Sahu, Ward-4(1), House No. 651, 1St Floor, Sector- Gurgaon, 10A, Near G. D. Goenka Public Haryana-122050 School, Gurgaon-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Eqsps3018G Assessee By : Sh. M. R. Sahu, Ca & Sh. Sudhir Yadav, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 Order

For Appellant: Sh. M. R. Sahu, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, 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)

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

Vikas Ratanlal Jain, Aurangabad vs. CIT(A), Aurangabad

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

ITA 648/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.648/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vikas Ratanlal Jain, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Plot No.32, Station Road, Aurangabad. Vedant Nagar, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Afapj5847B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nandkishor S. Daga & Shri Nitesh N. Daga Revenue By : Shri Shashank Ojha Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.01.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “01. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ctt(A) Along With The Learned Ao Has Erred In Contending That Provisions Of S. 56(2)(Vii)(B) Is Applicable To All The Immovable Properties Even If Such Land Is Considered As Stock In Trade. As Mentioned In The Explanation To The Aforesaid Section, Property Means The ‘Capital Asset’ Of The Assessee & Hence If Land Is Considered As Stock In Trade, Provisions Of Such 2 Section Are Not Applicable To Such Purchase. Reliance Is Placed On The Various Judicial Precedents Wherein It Has Been Held That The Provisions Of S. 56(2)(Vii)(B) Are Not Applicable To Stock In Trade But Is Applicable Only To Capital Assets:  Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Ashok Agarwal (Huf)

For Appellant: Shri Nandkishor S. Daga &For Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

purchase value and stamp duty value was required to be added in the hands of the assessee in the light of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, Ld. PCIT initiated proceedings u/s 263 of the Act and the assessment order dated 13.12.2016 was declared as erroneous ... Revenue and the assessment order was set-aside to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine afresh in the light of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and reframe the assessment order after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Vide order dated 30.08.2019, the Assessing

Machhindra Ishwarchand Sarode, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Thirteen(Four), Pune

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

ITA 1746/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajitesh Meena
Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 56(2)(x)

wherein addition of Rs.7.00 lakh has been made on account of difference of stamp duty value in terms of provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Act. I further notice that before ld.CIT(A) assessee raised legal ground challenging the validity of the re-assessment proceedings

Ram Ji Lal Meena, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Holding Additional Charge of ITO, Ward 6(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 419/JPR/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 151Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

growly erred in making an addition under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") without making a corresponding addition under Section 56(2)(vii) in the hands of the buyer, thereby violating the principles of consistency, equality, and fairness in taxation. The Ld. AO has further failed ... appreciate that the impugned addition under Section 50C is not sustainable without corresponding adjustment on the buyer's side under Section 56(2)(vii), which is contrary to established judicial precedents recognizing that both parties to a transaction must be assessed consistently.’’ 2.1 None appeared on behalf of the assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Mytrah Vayu (Gujarat) Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 690/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT.DRFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Bharadwaj V & Shri
Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

premium of Rs.40/- per share. The AO found the assessee to have not justified the premium received and accordingly invoked the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act for making addition of excess amount received in comparison to the Fair Market Value (‘FMV’) of the shares

Navnirman Infracon Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 689/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mehta, Addl. Sr. DR
Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(via)Section 56(2)(viia)

lower than its book value which was not the part of the reasons recorded, and thereby aggregate addition of Rs 2.70.55,620 under section 56(2)(via) of the Act is without jurisdiction, illegal, invalid and void ab-nitio. 7. That without prejudice to Ground No 6 above the Learned ... National Appeal Centre Delhi erred in confirming the aggregate addition of Rs.2,70,55,520/- under section 56(2)(viia) of the Act in complete disregard that the provisions of said 56(2)(viia) of the Act which was introduced with effect from 1st June, 2010 were not applicable

Ajay Balvantray Parekh, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4186/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 234Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 254(1)Section 56(2)(x)

Learned NFAC/CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,24,56,045 received from SANMP as distribution of income under section 56(2)(x) of the Act as 'Income from Other Sources (in the Assessment Order passed) and as "Income from Business' (in Computation Sheet enclosed with ... F.NO. 228/8/73-IT (A-11)] Dated 26.12.1974. c. the same treatment was accepted by the Department in all earlier years and subsequent year. d. section 56(2)(x) of the Act is not applicable in case of distribution by the trust to its beneficiaries. e. the dividend income on shares

Savegenie E-Marketing Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Gurgoan

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

ITA 3847/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

assessee had, during the course of assessment proceedings, submitted that the valuation for allotment of equity shares was made as per Section 56(2)(vii)(b) read with sub-rule (2) of Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Act on Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method on the basis ... whom share capital was allotted during the previous year. 11. The ld. counsel for the assessee continued by saying that as per section 56(2)(viib) read with sub-rule (2) of Rule 11UA, the assessee has an option to determine the fair market value of shares to be issued

Nkc Projects Private Limited, Jaipur vs. PCIT Delhi-4, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2804/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Sanwariya Gas Ltd., as per scope and ambit of limited scrutiny, therefore the issue of valuation of shares with applicability of provisions of section 56(2)(viib) as raised in SCN u/s 263 being beyond the scope of “limited scrutiny” is also beyond the scope of section 263. 15. Reliance ... section 263 of Act and whether he could have set aside the assessment on the ground that the assessing officer did not invoke Section 56(2)(vii)b(ii). The reading of the assessment order shows that the case was selected for limited scrutiny only on this aspect regarding

Raghunath Narayan Dhote, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Nagpur

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

ITA 505/NAG/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Naresh Jakhotia.A.RFor Respondent: Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 56(2)(x)Section 69A

disputed issue due to variation in the market value and the purchase cost of the property, Assessing Officer has invoked the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act and made addition of differential value of Rs.82,000/–. Finally, the Assessing officer has assessed the total income of Rs.42

Spandana Sphoorty Financial Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle 3(2), Hyderabad

ITA 821/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 69A

verification. 4.3 In case of a gift, it may be seen whether the same is taxable in the hands of the recipient under section 56(2) of the Act. 5. Cash received from identifiable persons (without PAN) 5.1 The AO needs to verify if the cash receipts

Seema Singh, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Central Central-1, Guwahati

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 89/GTY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

substance as well as the soul of the submissions adduced by the Appellant pertained to the elbow room [as per Section 56(2)(x) of the Act] which are not applicable. In the case of K.P Verghese vs. ITO [131 ITR 574 (SC)], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that

Naresh Bansilal Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 20(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 4

ITA 643/MUM/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: 04/09/2025
Section 132(4)Section 56(2)(x)

Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2021-22, confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). The grounds raised in appeal are reproduced as under: Mr. NareshBansilal Jain 2 ... confirming the addition of Rs.64,49,214/ Rs.64,49,214/- made by the Assessing Officer under section made by the Assessing Officer under section 56(2)(x) of Income Tax Act, 1961 on acc 56(2)(x) of Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of difference ount of difference between

Santlal Enterprise, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 822/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm**

Section 115BSection 250Section 50(2)(x)Section 56(2)(x)Section 68

## **IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D" BENCH, KOLKATA** # **BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

ACIT, Non-Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai vs. Late Shri Mahaveer Bhandari, Legal Heir- Smt. Lalitha Bhandari, Chennai

ITA 2785/CHNY/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2785/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Asst. Commissioner Of Late Shri Mahaveer Bhandari, Income Tax, Rep. By Legal Heir Smt. Lalitha Non-Corporate Circle 7(1), Vs. Bhandari, Chennai. 9, Athipattan Street, Mount Road, Chennai – 600 002. Pan: Aadpb 877A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ajith Kumar Chordia, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri Ajith Kumar Chordia, CA
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 56(2)(vii)

case. Ground No. 5 - Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) ought to have upheld the addition on account of section 56(2)(vii) of Rs. 7,85,10,196/- as it was correctly computed based on the Fair Market Value as on the date of transfer. Ground

Mr. Giliyal Chandrashekhara Bhat, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 24(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 750/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Accordingly, the assessee was asked to show cause as to why the said difference should not be added to his total income under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. In response, the assessee submitted that he had taken a flat in the year 2005 and the agreement ... Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 29.12.2017 passed under section 143(3) of the Act made an addition of Rs.92,85,800/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Further, the AO also rejected the claim of the assessee of set off of unabsorbed business losses under