“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)

Mahesh Katragadda, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 659/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 263Section 56(2)(x)

conviction that as the A.O. while framing the assessment had lost sight of the aforesaid material fact in the backdrop of applicability of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, thus, the same had rendered the assessment framed by him as erroneous in so far it was prejudicial ... same was Rs. 1,18,00,000/-, resulting in a difference of ₹18,00,000/-. Accordingly, the A.O. invoked the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act, and treated the difference 4 Mahesh Katragadda of Rs. 18 lacs as the assessee’s income from other sources and added

Rudaram Dungararamji Choudhary, Mumbai vs. ITO. 19(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5134/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

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

Rs.1,33,64,550/-. 2.2 The Ld.AO thus made addition of the differential amount in the stamp duty value by invoking provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the act. 2.3 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, simplified appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 2.4 The Ld.CIT(A) after ... stamp duty authority determine the value of the flat at Rs.1,33,64,550/-, cannot be the reason to invoke provisions of section 56 (2)(vii) (b) of the act. He submitted that the 1st payment made by the assessee’s on 18/10/2010 towards the purchase of the flat

Shree Sai Constructions, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4616/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)Section 53ASection 56(2)(x)

assessee purchased land at Shirgaon, Thane, for ₹62,50,000/- whereas the stamp duty valuation was ₹4,76,84,000/-. He invoked section 56(2)(x) and made an addition of ₹45,00,000/-. Further, upon examining the Joint Development Agreement (JDA), he held that though the assessee disclosed only ... novo adjudication. The Assessing Officer shall re-examine the terms of the JDA, the consideration actually received, and the applicability of section 56(2)(x) and section 45(5A), in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 12. In the result, the appeal is treated

Chandrakant Jethmal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 41(4)(1), Mumbai, Bkc, Bandra (East)

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 4611/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrychandrakant Jethmal Jain, Ito, Ward-41(1), Flat No.E-2004, Anmol Excel Mumbai Estate, S.V. Road, Opp. Patel Vs. Petrol Pump, Goregaon (West), Mumbai-400062 Pan: Aacpj 0335 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Patni, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri G.J. Ninawe, Ld. Sr.D.R

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

purchase consideration amount shown by the Assessee to the tune of Rs.5,78,550/- as per the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act and in respect of property situated numbered as C-406, situated at Royal Samrat, S.V. Road, Goregaon, Mumbai-400062 3. The Assessee, though being ... both the authorities below, made and affirmed the addition, without considering the aforesaid agreement to sell dated 14/11/2011 and first proviso to section 56(2)(x) of the Act, which prescribes as under: “Where the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable property

Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai vs. Bona Sera Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 863/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri M. M. Golwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Femina Concept Marketing & Retail Trading (Textiles) Co Private Limited, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6940/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GantraFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna (Sr. DR)

Section 147Section 250Section 250(4)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

26AS, the actual purchase consideration was only Rs.50,00,000/- paid through banking channels and also ignoring the non-applicability of provisions of section 56(2)(x) enacted w.e.f. A.Y. 2018-19 to impugned Assessment Year. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant company's case

Fragment Nivesh P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

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

ITA 572/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Enormous Nivesh Pvt. Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., 1, Zamrudpur Community Income Tax, Central Circle Centre, Kailash Colony, 13, Ara Centre, New Delhi – 1100 48 Jhandewalan Extension, Pan No. Aabcd1454F Delhi -1100 55 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Fragment Nivesh P. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 1, Zamrudpur Community Income Tax, Central Circle Centre, Kailash Colony, 13, Ara Centre, New Delhi – 1100 48 Jhandewalan Extension, Pan No. Aaecs5314G Delhi -1100 55 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Avikal Manu, CIT - DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 56(2)

illegal. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the treatment made out by the AO of applying section 56(2) (viia) on allotment of shares through share application, and thereby making the addition as confirmed by the Ld.. CIT(A) is contrary ... allotment of shares does not fall u/s 56(2) (viia) of the act and instead for allotment of shares provisions section 56(2) (viib) applies and therefore, the addition made is illegal and bad in law. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the action

Enormous Nivesh P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

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

ITA 570/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Avikal Manu, CIT - DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 56(2)

Uniproducts (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6596/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhuniproducts (India) Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle 27(1), Khasra No. 360-361, Room No. 193, C.R. Bldg, Village Jonapur, New Delhi – 110 002 Mehraulli Delhi – 110 047 (Pan:Aaacu0224D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Sanjiv Rai Mehra, Ca Respondent By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30 .09.2025

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjiv Rai Mehra, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

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

satisfaction of the AO to substantiate the valuation of share at Rs. 40 each. Thus, the AO invoked the provision of Section 56(2)(viib) and added Rs. 2,63,73,189/- to the total income of the assessee. Against the above, assessee preferred the appeal before ... fair market value based on net asset value or discounted cash flow method be adopted to arrive at the conclusion of applying section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. In its paper book the appellant has annexed a purported valuation certification issued by one Sh. Sanjeev Rai Mehra, partner

Neetu Yadav, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Gurgaon

ITA 845/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 4095/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 4229/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Ita No. 845/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Neetu Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, 164-P, Sector-15, Part-1, Ward-3(1), Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abfpy2785C Assessee By : Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. & Sh. Archit Pandey, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals In Ita Nos. 4095 & 4229/Del/2024 & Ita No. 845/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2019-20, Arise Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1066728710(1) & 1067097100(1) & 1066774096(1) Dated 15.07.2024, 16.07.2024 & 29.07.2024 In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, 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)

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

Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Noida vs. ITO 5(2) 2, Noida

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1785/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 1785/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Vs Cit(A)/Nfac, L-002, Prateek Laurel, Sector-120, Delhi Noida, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Arvps8765J Assessee By : Ms. Preeti Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Pradumna Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1054853837(1) Dated 03.08.2023, In Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Ms. Preeti Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Pradumna Kumar Singh, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

between the parties in the relevant previous year involving “lease rights” than the prescribed capital asset(s) of “land and building” as per section 56(2)(vii) Explanation (d)(i) of the Act. The Revenue could hardly dispute that the impugned statutory provision is pari materia to section ... jurisdictional high courts’ 3 Rajesh Kumar Sharma decisions, a view which favours the assessee ought to be adopted and delete the impugned section 56(2)(vii) addition herein amounting to Rs.21,95,375/- in very terms. Ordered accordingly. 5. All other pleadings between the parties on merits stand rendered academic

Neetu Yadav, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Gurgaon

ITA 4229/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, 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)

Neetu Yadav, Gurgaon, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Office, Gurgaon

ITA 4095/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, 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)

Yakub Ibrahim Doba, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)(5), Surat

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

ITA 322/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.322/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Yakub Ibrahim Doba Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1 Maiyat Faliya, At: Kathor Tal: 2(2)(5) Kamrej, Surat-394150 Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bqkpd0801P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(vi)Section 56(2)(vii)

purchase considerations and fair market value determined by the stamp duty valuation authority. On the aforesaid difference of Rs.52,68,777/-, provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act was attracted. The AO issued show cause notice on 11.11.2015 and its reminder on 24.11.2016 to the assessee. However

Milan Amrutlal Shah, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 682/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.682/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 (Hybrid Hearing) Milan Amruitlal Shah Income Tax Officer Ward-1(2)(1), बनाम/ Plot No.4119, Road No.41, Surat, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Vs. Gidc, Road Rs, Surat- 394 Gate, Surat-395 001 230 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaopn 6144 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(X)Section 56(2)(x)

that date was Rs.1,61,24,702/-. The assessee made payment of Rs.10,30,900/- on 08.02.2018. The assessee referred to Section 56(2)(x) of the Act and submitted that the assessee had made payment from his HUF account and the same was reflected as unsecured loan in balance ... developer on 10.10.2012, which was subsequently was repaid to HUF on 08.02.2018 by cheque of Rs.10,30,900/-. Therefore, provisions of Section 56(2)(x) are not applicable. He submitted that the CIT(A) has not considered the details submitted by the appellant and passed non- spealing order dismissing

Shanmugasundaram Venkatachalapathy, Tirunelveli, Tamilnadu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Tirunelveli

In the result, grounds of appeal raised

ITA 2056/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayshri Shanmugasundaram I.T.O., Venkatachalapathy, Vs. Ward-4, C/O-Durv & Associates Llp, No. Tirunelveli. 10/80, Avm Avenue 3Rd Street, Virugambakkam, Chennai-600092 (Tamil Nadu) Pan No. Acapv 3414 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

appreciating the fact that a sum of Rs. 19,22,500 has been deposited out of the gifts from relatives as defined in section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. 7. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the Learned AO without appreciating the fact

Ideaforge Technology Ltd, Mahape vs. ACIT, Circle 15(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 867/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 867/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ideaforge Technology V/S. Assistant Commissioner Ltd. बिधम Of Income Tax, Circle El-146, Ttc Industrial 15(2)(1), Mumbai Area, Electronic Zone, Room No. 357, 3Rd Floor, Midc, Mahape, Navi Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Mumbai Karve Road, Mumbai 400020 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabci6495B Appellant/अपीलधथी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्धाररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi Shri. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (Sr Dr) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date Of Hearing 22.08.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 11.12.2024, Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “On The Facts & In Law, 1. The Hon. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Id Ao In Making Addition Of Rs. 6,60,02,100/- By Relying Upon The Provisions Of Section 56(2)(Viib) Of The It Act, 1961 On The Ground That The Consideration Received By The Appellant For Issue Of P A G E | 2

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi

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

upholding the action of the Id AO in making addition of Rs. 6,60,02,100/- by relying upon the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the IT Act, 1961 on the ground that the consideration received by the appellant for issue of P a g e | 2 ... making addition of Rs. 6,60,02,100/- under s. 56(2)(viib) of the IT Act, 1961, not appreciating that as per section 56(2)(viib) r.w. Rule 11UA(2)(b), the choice of adopting a valuation method lies with the assessee and not with

Jashoda Khimji Bhadra, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4997/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailjashoda Khimji Bhadra, 102, Shubh Apt, Opp Kelkar College, 90 Feet Road, Mulund (E), Mumbai – 400081 ............... Appellant Pan : Abvpb5569P

For Appellant: Ms. Rupa NandaFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Chandra, Sr.DR

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

Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.8,60,000/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, being the alleged difference between the stamp duty value and the actual consideration paid purchase of immovable ... through video conferencing and without adjudicating the matter on merits.” 3. The solitary grievance of the assessee is against the addition made under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 4. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. 5. The brief

Lakhdhir Virji Gala, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4301/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pravin Adake a/w Shri KartikFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Jamale, Addl. CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43CSection 50CSection 56Section 56(2)(x)

stamp duty value and the agreement value cannot be added when the tolerance bandwidth is 5% as per the amendment brought about to Section 56(2)(x) of the Act which according to the ld. AR applies retrospectively as being curative in nature. The ld. AR further stated that Section

Vijay Singh Chauhan, Noida vs. ITO, Ward-2(5), Noida

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 2561/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishravijay Singh Chauhan, Income Tax Officer, House No.-193, Gali No.-3, Vs. Ward- 2(5), Noida, Village Chhalera, Sector-44, Uttar Pradesh, Noida, Uttar Pradesh India. India. Pan No: Aeipc4637E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Sh. Naveen Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.09.2025 Order Per Sudhir Pareek, Jm: The Aforetitled Appeal Has Been Preferred Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter, In Short, ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 17.07.2023 For Ay 2015-16, By Which Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed.

For Appellant: Sh. Naveen Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 10(37)Section 143(2)Section 28Section 34

Contra, the Learned DR relying upon the orders passed by the both authorities below, submitted that the Legislature introduced the provisions of section 56(2)(viii) vide an amendment, by the Finance Act, 2009, w.e.f. 01/04/2010, and inserted “income by way of interest received on compensation or on enhanced compensation ... provisions of section 57(iv) providing for a deduction of a sum equal to the fifty percent of the income referred to in section 56(2)(viii). Further submitted that section 145A of the Act provides for the method of accounting in certain cases and section 145A(b) inter-alia