← 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)

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

ITA 236/DDN/2025[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

Rajendrakumar Ichubhai Kothari, Bharuch vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bharuch

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

ITA 836/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.835/Srt/2025 आयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.836/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Rajendrakumar Ichubhai The Ito बनाम/ Kothari Ward-1(4) V/S. 2 119 Parkhetiafaliyu Kervada Bharuch – 356 069 Amod Bharuch Bharuch – 392 025 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Cfupk 6177 B (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Surendra Modiani, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/03/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Two Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 11/06/2025 (Quantum Appeal) & 12/06/2025 (Penalty Appeal) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2013-14. Ita Nos.835 & 836/Srt/2025 Rajendrakumar Ichubhai Kothari Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Modiani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

relating to the income of the other co-owners. 6. Secondly, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied upon the provisions of section 56(2)(viii) of the Act which refers to income way of interest received on compensation or on enhanced compensation to be treated as income from ... section 57(iv) of the Act which states that in case of income of the nature referred to in clause (viii) of section 56(2), a deduction of a sum of equal to 50% of such income will be allowed. The Ld. Counsel therefore has submitted even otherwise the assessee

Rajendrakumar Ichubhai Kothari, Bharuch vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bharuch

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

ITA 835/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.835/Srt/2025 आयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.836/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Rajendrakumar Ichubhai The Ito बनाम/ Kothari Ward-1(4) V/S. 2 119 Parkhetiafaliyu Kervada Bharuch – 356 069 Amod Bharuch Bharuch – 392 025 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Cfupk 6177 B (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Surendra Modiani, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/03/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Two Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 11/06/2025 (Quantum Appeal) & 12/06/2025 (Penalty Appeal) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2013-14. Ita Nos.835 & 836/Srt/2025 Rajendrakumar Ichubhai Kothari Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Modiani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

relating to the income of the other co-owners. 6. Secondly, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied upon the provisions of section 56(2)(viii) of the Act which refers to income way of interest received on compensation or on enhanced compensation to be treated as income from ... section 57(iv) of the Act which states that in case of income of the nature referred to in clause (viii) of section 56(2), a deduction of a sum of equal to 50% of such income will be allowed. The Ld. Counsel therefore has submitted even otherwise the assessee

Harjinder Singh, Derabassi vs. Income Tax Officer, Chandigarh

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

ITA 795/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. RAJ PAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinayak Malhotra, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54BSection 56(2)(x)

from the brother of the Assessee, hence the money received as a gift from relative was not taxable as per the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. That the Assessment Order issued under section 143(3) is liable to be quashed

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

ITA 2577/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: This Tribunal.

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

income 1,68,000 (12.5) Disallowance u/s 24a 25,200 (12.6) Fair rent 3,40,000 (12.7) Deemed dividend (14.1-14.13) Addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(c) 92,95,305 (15.1-15.5) Foreign Travel Expenses Unexplained investment u/s 69 Unexplained money 2

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

ITA 2570/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: This Tribunal. 2. Since, The Facts Are The Identical Across All The Appeals / For All The Assessment Years, Except For The Nature Of The Additions / Disallowances Varying In Few Of The Assessment Year(S) Before This Tribunal In The Present Batch Of 6 Appeals, The Appeal Arising From The A.Y. 2012-13 Is Being Taken Up As The Lead Case With The Consent Of The Both The Ld. Ar As Well As The Departmental Representatives. 3. The Brief Fact Of The Present Case Is That The Assessee, Shri Thanushkodi Narayanan, Is The Managing Director Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt Ltd. The Assessee Filed His Original Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 27.09.2012 In Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.24,87,430/-. 4. A Search & Seizure Operation Was Carried Out In Terms Of Section 132 Of The Act On 04.10.2017 In The Residential Premises Of The Assessee & Also In The Premises Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. In Which The Assessee Is The Managing Director. 5. Thereafter, A Notice U/S.153A Of The Act For The A.Y.2012-13 Was Issued On 25.09.2018 To The Assessee By The Assessing Officer (In Short “Ao”) & In Response To The Same, The Assessee Had Filed E-Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 17.08.2019 In Declaring Total Income Of Rs.14,53,440/-. :-3-:

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Deemed dividend (14.1-14.13) Addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(c) 92,95,305 (15.1-15.5) 1,50,000 (14.114.6) 1,50,000 (15.1–15.6) 1,50,000 (15.1–15.6) 1,50,000 (13.1 – 13.6) Foreign Travel Expenses Unexplained investment u/s 69 Unexplained money 2

Jothi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai

ITA 2569/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: This Tribunal.

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Allowance in salary Addition u/s 17(2) Interest of borrowed capital Deemed rental income Disallowance u/s 24a Fair rent Deemed dividend Addition under Section 56(2)(vii) (c) Foreign Travel Expenses Unexplained investment u/s 69 Unexplained money

Vikas Bedprakash Pandey, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(4)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 646/MUM/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Bijayananda Prusethvikas Bedprakash Pandey, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1102 Riddhi Tower, Riddhi Garden 41(4)(4),Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai- Film City Road, Malad E Mumbai- 400051. 400097. Pan/Gir No: Anwpp9823B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Adv. Respondent By Shri Pankaj Kumar (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 O R D E R Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am:

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

Rs.74,519/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The AO did not accept reliance of the assessee on the provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act by observing that it was effective from 01.04.2019 (AY 2019-20). 4. Aggrieved by the order ... duty value. Since the difference was not more than 10% of the transaction value, the addition is against law. The appellant referred to section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act and submitted that the difference was within the permissible variation in the Act itself. He relied on the decisions

Ascentech Engineering Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1686/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad06 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita.No.1686/Hyd/2025

For Appellant: MS Sree Lekha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Mathivanan S A, Sr. AR
Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A' Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN

ITO 19.3.1, Mumbai vs. Varun Jaisingh Asher, Mumbai

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

ITA 8251/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Girish Agrawalito -19(3)(1), Mumbai Varun Jaisingh Asher Room No.405, 4Th Floor, Piramal Arkade Rise, 17Th Floor, 31-A, Vs. Chambers, Lower Parel Mumbai Carmichael Road, Cumballa Hills, 400012 Mumbai 400026 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aiapa1791N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri. Sushil Shengde, SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54FSection 56(2)(x)

right. The Ld. AO disregarded the tenancy agreement, and treating it as a colourable devise and tax the value of flat receipt under section 56(2)(x)(b) as income from other sources. Ignoring the nature as considering for surrender of tenancy rights being a capital asset. Ld. AO also ... assessee in the redeveloped building was not against any genuine consideration. Thus, he treated the receipt of the flat as gratuitous and invoked section 56(2)(x), taxing the stamp duty value of Rs.11.68 crore as income from other sources. From review of documentary evidence it is seen that Tenancy

Rinki Singh, Jamshedpur Telco vs. ITO Ward 2(1) Jamshedpur, Jamshedpur

ITA 56/RAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Rinki Singh, I.T.O., Flat No. 5703, Prakirti Shanti Valley Ward 2(1), Vs. Society, Hurlung, Telco, Jamshedpur. Jamshedpur-831004 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Issps 0698 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 249Section 270ASection 56(2)(x)

30/03/2023 on a total income of ₹ 23,56,250/- in which addition of Rinki Singh Vs ITO ₹ 21,11,500/- was added under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act on the ground that the property being Flat No. B/2, 2nd Floor, Sai Heritage, Block No. 2, Ghorabandha Telco, Jamshedpur

Dharmbati, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Inspector Faridabad, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5672/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2018-19 Dharmbati, Vs. Income Tax Inspector, H. No. 523, Chandawali, Faridabad Ballabhgarh, Faridabad Pan: Azipb6400G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 05.03.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The “Cit(A)/Nfac”], Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1077406804(1), Dated 23.06.2025 Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Case Called Twice. None Appears At The Assessee’S Behest. He Is Accordingly Proceeded Ex-Parte. 2. It Emerges During The Course Of Hearing That The Sole Substantive Issue Between The Parties Is That Of Correctness Of The Learned Lower Authorities’ Action Assessing The Assessee’S Interest Component Of Land Acquisition Compensation U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, While Invoking Section 57(Iv) R.W.S. 56(1)(A) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The Act. 3. Learned Sr. Dr Representing The Department Vehemently Argued That The Instant Issue Is No More Res Integra In Light Of Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Cbdt (2020) 423 Itr 13 (P&H) As Well As Pcit Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi Huf (2024) 161 Taxmann.Com 301 (Del.) Wherein The Department Has Succeeded Before Their Lordships That The Impugned Interest Component Ought To Be Assessed As Income From “Other” Sources Only. 4. We Have Given Our Thoughtful Consideration To The Assessee’S Pleadings & Revenue’S Foregoing Vehement Contention. It Emerges That This Tribunal’S Recent Decision In Pawan Kumar Vs. Pcit (2024) 159 Taxmann.Com 61 (Del.-Trib.) Has Distinguished The Said Case Law As Under:

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

Tiruchangodu Ramasamy Khannaiyann Sarasuwathi, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

ITA 3135/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT
Section 142A(6)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

immovable property situated at Kalapatti Village, Coimbatore. 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act are not invocable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 5. For that the Commissioner ... respect of the declared sale consideration and the value determined by the stamp valuation authority, even for the purposes of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act since the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act invariably refer to the provisions of section 50C(2

Ravi Vijayalakshmi, Athipattu vs. ITO, Ncw-6(1), Chennai

ITA 2887/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(vii)

levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, is sustainable where the addition is made solely by invoking the deeming provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 12. Insofar as the delay before the ld. CIT(A) is concerned, the explanation offered by the assessee

Smita Suresh Janwalkar, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 368/MUM/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsmita Suresh Janwalkar Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 27(3)(1), Bldg No 168 Panchaganga It-Office, Vasi Railway Station Chs, Pantnagar, Ghatkopar E, Building, Thane, Mumbai-400075. Navi Mumbai-400703. Pan/Gir No: Bbqpj2341M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 56(2)(x)

liable to be quashed. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of 8,51,880 made under section 56(2)(x) without appreciating that the entire consideration for the property was paid in the year 2011, and therefore the provisions of section 56(2)(x) were wrongly ... Officer dated 01.06.2023 determined the fair market value of the property at 10,12,000, which clearly demonstrates that the addition made under section 56(2)(x) is arbitrary and unsustainable. 10. The learned CIT(A) failed to consider and appreciate the independent registered valuer's report submitted

Juee Sudhir Gore, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-42(2)(3), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 5868/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav: A.Y. : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kumar KaleFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(a)Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 56(2)(x)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) read with Section 144B of the Act thereby making an addition of Rs.1,83,909/- under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The appeal relates to assessment year 2017-18. 2. The brief facts are that the assessee filed her Return ... property at the relevant date was Rs.30,97,000/- and, therefore, proposed the addition of the difference of Rs.23,97,000/- under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. Statutory notice was issued on 11.06.2021, which was treated as being issued under Section 148A(b) of the amended provisions

Sanya Dhanani, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer 1(4), Indore

In the result the "Impugned order” is upheld as the same

ITA 238/IND/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisanya Dhanani, 8-9 Bf, Vijay Nagar, Sch 78, Indore (Pan:Ccvpd5198M) (Appellant) Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement

Section 11Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 251Section 253Section 56(2)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Navkar Wollens Private Limited, Bikaner vs. ACIT Circle-3, Bikaner

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 670/JODH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blenavkar Woollens Private Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of Rani Bazar, Bikaner, H.O. Income Tax, Circle – 3 Bikaner, Bikaner Bikaner - 334001 Pan No. Aabcn 9287 G Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate & Smt. Raksha Birla, Ca (Physical) Revenue By Smt. Runi Pal, Cit-Dr & Shri Lalit Kumar Bishnoi, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As Nfac/Cit(A)] Dated 30.07.2025 With Respect To Assessment Year 2014-15 Challenging Therein Sustaining The Addition Of Rs. 2,34,04,480/- On Account Of Difference Between The Fair Market Value & The Issue Price Of The Equity Shares By Questioning The Method Of Valuation.

Section 144Section 147Section 56(2)(viib)

further observed that appellant had advanced arguments that company incurred business losses on account of depreciation on solar plant is irrelevant. Section 56(2)(viib) specifically deals with the premium received over FMV on the issuance of shares and treats such excess as taxable income regardless of the company ... share to the allotted shares at Rs. 100 which is much less than the NAV is not contravening of Section 56(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal has held that addition was not in contravention of the Provisions of Section 56(2) of the Act and held

Vikas Satish Khanna, Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer, Circle 13(3)(2), Aaykar Bhawan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7146/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethvikas Satish Khanna, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Circle 13(3)(2), 102, Green Acres Apartment, 61/B, Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai-400020. Pali Hill Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050. Pan/Gir No: Ahzpk7423R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ashwin Chhag Respondent By Shri Akhtar H. Ansari (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 26.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11.03.2026 O R D E R Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am:

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

Since the difference was not more than 10% of the transaction value, the addition is against law. The appellant referred to section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act and submitted that the difference was within the permissible variation in the Act itself. He relied on the decision ... Shreyas Naynesh Modi vs. ITO [ITA No.4453/Mum/2024 dated 23.01.2026 (AY 2018-19)]. He submitted that the 2 Vikas Satish Khanna amendment to section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Act is a curative amendment to avoid unintended consequences and is retrospective in nature. Therefore, no addition was needed because

Neelesh Shyamsunder Sable, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 51(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 8304/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Respondent: Mr. Sumit Sinha, Adv. (Virtually
Section 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viia)Section 56(2)(x)

decided by the AO and as such and it was not a capital asset as decided by the AO and as such Section 56(2) (vii) does not apply Section 56(2) (vii) does not apply 2. That the Appellant had produced various documents on record 2. That the Appellant ... excluded and c excluded and cannot be taxed under Section 56 of the Act. Section 56 of the Act. The Explanation (b) to Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, specifically provides Explanation (b) to Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, specifically provides Explanation (b) to Section 56(2