← 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)

A B Propmart Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 108/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] A B Propmart Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, Punjabi Bhawan, 10 Ward-1(1), Rouse Avenue, Delhi-110002. Delhi Pan-Aagca7340G Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Chandan Agarwal, Ca & Shri Ajay Marwah, Ca Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15.10.2025 Order

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

Income Tax Rules, 1962 instead of working out the value of its assets as defined in Explanation (a)(ii) to Section 56(2) (viib) of the Act is arbitrary, unjust and at any rate very excessive. 2. That the Assessing Officer and CIT (Appeals) both ought not to have rejected ... perspective. The Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in DCIT vs. Ozone India Ltd. in ITA No.2081/Ahd/2018 order dated 13.04.2021 in the context of Section 56(2)(viib) has analyzed the deeming provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act threadbare and inter alia observed that the deeming clause requires

Dilip Kantilal Kubavat, Porbandar vs. ITO WD 2(3), Porbandar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 522/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.522/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2016-17 Dilip Kantilal Kubavat Ito बनाम/ Prop. Vijay Dairy Farm, Ward 2 (3), Vs Near Ramdhun S V P Road, Porbandar 360575 Porbandar - 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Azfpk8009B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14 /10/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 21.03.2025, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here-In-After Referred To As “The Act”) Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds Of Appeal. However, The Solitary Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Not To Consider The Basic Fact That The Assessee Has Gifted The Property To His Sister In Law (Younger Brother'S Wife) That Is, To A Relative For A Consideration Dilip Kantilal Kubavat

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

assessee has offered the transaction for tax, suo- motto and moreover, the assessee’s case doesn’t fall under the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. The Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act is applicable only to the purchaser. Therefore, the assessee’s case ... covered under the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. The Ld. Dilip Kantilal Kubavat DR also submitted that the assessee’s case is covered u/s 50C of the Act. The Ld. DR further pointed out that this is not the case of gift, as there

Nishant Parekh- Legal Heir of Mina Parekh, Jamnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 215/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.215/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-2016) Nishant Parekh – Legal Heir Of Vs. Income Tax Officer Mina Parekh Aaykar Bhavan 322 Madhav Square, Opp 361001, Gujrat Avantika Complex, Limda Lane Road, Gujrat-361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aanpp9471F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 147Section 250Section 68

loss or to convert the unaccounted money into white money, and that was the reason that the Government has introduced Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act. The assessee received the bogus long term capital gain (LTCG) and that is why, section

Tanveer Bano, Unnao vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(4), Unnao

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 430/LKW/2025[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow14 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 253(3)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69Section 69A

aforesaid assessment order, addition of Rs.6,90,000/- was made under section 69 and further addition of Rs.4,64,000/- was made under section 56(2)(x) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 14/01/2025

Dimple Rajesh Oswal, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(1), Pune

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

ITA 1506/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Bharat ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Sailee Dhole, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)(vii)

determining the total income of Rs.19,60,971/- wherein he made addition of Rs.10,76,291/- by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act by observing as under: “4.6. Conclusion drawn. A show cause notice dated 13-11-2023 was issued to the assessee asking ... computation of the SRO value of the property and the fair market value (as claimed) the AO has noticed that provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) are attracted in the present case and the difference of Rs.10,76,291/- (Rs.57,31,291/- minus Rs.46,55,000/-) was added

Aruneswar Mukhopadhyay, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1057/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1057/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Aruneswar Mukhopadhyay,……………….……Appellant 64, Rajni Mukherjee Road, Sahapur, Kolkata-700038, West Bengal [Pan:Adspm1879J] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..Respondent Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 25, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 14, 2025 O R D E R

Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)

amount of Rs.5,15,326/- should not be taxed as gift in his hand under the head “income from other sources” as per section 56(2) of the Act. Getting no reply from the side of the assessee, the assessment order in the case of appellant was passed

Rakesh Agarwal, Aligarh vs. PCIT Agra-1, Agra

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 205/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 147oSection 148Section 263Section 50Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

ground that the assessee had purchased an immovable property, at a consideration significantly lower than the circle rate, thereby attracting the provision of section 56(2) (viib) of the Act. The AO noted that the actual total consideration for the said property was Rs. 4,71,04,002/-, while ... notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, was issued to the Assessee on 15.06.2022, asking as to why not the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act be applicable in her case. The assessee complied and submitted her response, dated 16.06.2022. 2.2 Further, in her reply dated

Mamta Agarwal, Aligarh vs. PCIT Agra-1, Agra

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 204/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 147oSection 148Section 263Section 50Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

ground that the assessee had purchased an immovable property, at a consideration significantly lower than the circle rate, thereby attracting the provision of section 56(2) (viib) of the Act. The AO noted that the actual total consideration for the said property was Rs. 4,71,04,002/-, while ... notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, was issued to the Assessee on 15.06.2022, asking as to why not the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act be applicable in her case. The assessee complied and submitted her response, dated 16.06.2022. 2.2 Further, in her reply dated

Saroj Devi Haldiya, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-6(1), Jaipur

ITA 917/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.B. Natani, CAFor Respondent: Mrs.Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(ix)Section 57

learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.75,00,000/- illegally made by the learned AQ under section 56(2)(ix) of the income tax Act 1961. 5. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred ... Rs.75,00,000/- to the assessee and assessee had to forfeit the same. If any action at all is required wr to section 56(2)(ix) the same is required to be considered in the case of M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited. The learned AO was wrong in training

Mohammed Rauf Farook Khan, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Thane

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 4015/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhukeshwar Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kasuri,(Sr. AR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

made in the year of purchase. 4. A. The learned AO has erred in applying the provisions of Section 50C and Section 56(2)(x) when the appellant had paid advance on agreement for sale in 2012 through bank wherethe guidance value was less than the purchase value

Leena Ashok Zope, Akola vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3, Akola

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

ITA 428/NAG/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleleena Ashok Zope, At Post Kurum, Tq. Murtizapur Dist. Akola -444 115, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan- Aatpz1101G V/S Income Tax Officer Ward–3, Aayakar Bhawan, ……………. Respondent Akola-444001, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri.Manoj G. Moryani.Ar Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri.Manoj G. Moryani.ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 56(1)(x)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

purchased immovable property in the F.Y. 2017–18 and the purchase consideration is being below the fair market value hence the provisions of section 56(2)(x)(B) of the Act are applicable. The Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice under

Princess Infra & Development LLP, Kota vs. ACIT-Central Circle-Kota, Kota

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

ITA 859/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 153B(1)(b)Section 153CSection 56(2)(X)Section 68

circumstances of the case the learned Assessing Officergrossly erred in making an addition of Rs. 10,90,73,795/- under section 56(2)(X) of the Act on account difference between DLC rate and Purchase amount of the property purchased by the assessee appellant during the year under consideration ... reproducing here for the sake of brevity.’’ 7. Ground No. 3 of appeal relates to addition of Rs. 10,90,73,795/- under section 56(2)(X) of the Act on account difference between DLC rate 7.1 At the time of passing of assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153B

Princess Infra & Development LLP, Kota vs. ACIT-Central Circle-Kota, Kota

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

ITA 858/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 153B(1)(b)Section 153CSection 56(2)(X)Section 68

circumstances of the case the learned Assessing Officergrossly erred in making an addition of Rs. 10,90,73,795/- under section 56(2)(X) of the Act on account difference between DLC rate and Purchase amount of the property purchased by the assessee appellant during the year under consideration ... reproducing here for the sake of brevity.’’ 7. Ground No. 3 of appeal relates to addition of Rs. 10,90,73,795/- under section 56(2)(X) of the Act on account difference between DLC rate 7.1 At the time of passing of assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153B

Ramesh Jaisinghani, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 980/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 50(2)(ec)Section 55(2)(aa)Section 55(2)(ac)Section 55(2)(as)Section 56(2)(ac)

applied prospectively Le it should be applied to OFS transactions after 22 July 2024: erred in applying the amended provision of Section 56(2)(ac) of the Act, without appreciating that the amended provisions cannot be applied retrospectively since it creates a new class of "assessee" as well as burdens

Madhur Laxman Gadikar, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 4(1), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 406/NAG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemadhur Laxman Gadikar, Kharbikar Mohalla, House No.426–B Ward No.27, Golibar Chowk ……………. Appellant Jaganath Gol, Nagpur-440018, Maharashtra, Pan – Avzpg3725G V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–4(1), Nagpur Assessee By :Shri Abhishek Kumar. A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Kumar. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

Authority and the amount paid by the assessee is hereby added to the total income of the assessee as per the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 4. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A)/Ld. AO is justified in passing

Kataria Snack Pellets Private Limited, Rajkot vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 468/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.468/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kataria Snack Pellets Pvt. Ltd. The Acit, Circle-1(1) बनाम 510, Gidc, Metoda Kalawad Road Rajkot Rajkot-360021, Gujarat Vs. Pan : Aafck2028L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Nishit B. Jesur, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

prepares the share after obtaining data from management without any basis. (v) Further, the one of the reason behind the introduction of the Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act is to curb the introduction of the black money in the garb of Share premium. Therefore, the exorbitant price ... basis of financials, as on 31.03.2014, that is, last financial available before the share issue date. In terms of provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the fair market value of the share of the assessee -company under Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules

Poonam Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 30(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1544/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2020-21 Poonam Lakhmani…………….……………………….……….……….……Appellant 561 Block N New Alipore, Kol- 700053.. [Pan: Abqpl4291H] Vs. Ito, Ward-30(1), Kolkata………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 07, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.06.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

Section 250Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

assessment by making an addition Poonam Lakhmani of Rs.30,64,000/- (Rs.1,05,64,000/- - 75,00,000/-) as per provisions of section 56(2)(x) and addition of Rs.75,00,000/- u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before

Aparna Sandeep Kulkarani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Int Tax Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 909/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2015-16 Aparna Sandeep Kulkarni, Income Tax Officer, 201A, Kanchanjanga, Int. Tax. Ward-3(1)(1), Sector 12-A, Plot No.12, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Koparkhairane, Bandra Kurla Complex, Navi Mumbai-400709. Bandra (East), Pan : Axfpk0077M Mumbai-400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ketan L. Vajani For Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 17-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-10-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Ketan L. VajaniFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

2. The DRP has erred in not appreciating the fact that the case of the appellant is covered by the first proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and that on application of the said proviso, the transaction value of the flat was more than the value ... Without any prejudice whatsoever to the above grounds, the DRP has failed to appreciate that the 'consideration' as specified in section 56(2)(vii)(b) is not confined to monetary consideration. On the facts of the case, the appreciation of the value of the old flat forgone by the appellant

Vedprakash Pannalal Gupta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(1)(5), Mumbai

ITA 4389/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Vedprakash Pannalal Gupta Ito-41(1)(5) Room No. 19, Lohia Nagar Kautilya Bhavan Sion Laxmi Baug, Sion Vs. Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400 022. Complex, Mumbai-51. Pan : Bbdpg7181H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Kavitha KaushikFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Thakurdesai
Section 234BSection 56(2)(x)

whether Ld. CIT(A) is correct in law in upholding the addition made by Ld. AO with respect to the addition under section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act. Another ground of appeal raised by the appellant in this case, is that the share of appellant ... 1/3rd share. 2. From the assessment order, it is observed that the Ld. AO made an addition of Rs. 69,89,659/- under section 56(2)(x) of the Act which deals with difference between the value mentioned in sale document and the cost determined by State Government for stamp

Madhu Dubey, Allahabad vs. Dc/Ac-1(1), Allahabad, Mg Marg Allahabad

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

ITA 58/ALLD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 Madhu Dubey V. Dc/Ac-1(1) 657A/1, Jamuna Nagar, Chak Mg Marg, Allahabad- Raghunath, Naini-211008. 211001. Pan:Asipd8489J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Naman Agrawal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Naman Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. DR

/and purchase price paid Rs 1.20,00,000i e. Rs 56 06.000/is added to the income of assessee under provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) (ii) of IT Act,1961. (Addition of Rs.56,06,000/-] 5. The assessee has made capital addition of Rs 2 lacs ... transactions. It Is pertinent to mention here that even, the gesesses furnished these documents, she would not have been given any benent as section 56(2)(vii)(b) speaks of gift receipt from others up to in aggregate) Rs. 50,000/-. Thus assessee failed to give sufficient evidence regarding this