“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)

DCIT Circle-13(2), New Delhi vs. Jus Scriptum Magnus Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, we dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue

ITA 8259/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

selected for limited scrutiny under 2 CASS for the reason “Large share premium received during the year in order to verify applicability of section 56(2)(viib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). Accordingly, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served ... recent judgment, the Hon'ble ITAT after considering the facts, which is similar to that of appellant, has very clearly held that:- "33. Section 56(2) (viib) is a deeming provision and one cannot expand the meaning of scope of any word while interpreting such deeming provision. If the statute

Javidbhai Ahemadbhai Mansuri, Patan vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Patan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1194/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblejavidbhai Ahemadbhai Mansuri, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Prop. Aamil Surgical Hospital, Ward -1, Subhadranagar, Near C.T. Point, Patan Patan-384265 [Pan : Agnpm 6086 B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ganta Manoj Kumar G., Ca Respondent By: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri Ganta Manoj Kumar G., CAFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr DR

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

payments made through the bank account. These documents/evidences are well before the Ld. CIT(A). 3.4 In this background, the provisions of Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act are examined. The same reads as under:- Javidbhai Ahemadbhai Mansuri Vs ITO Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 3– (x) where ... been paid by way of account payee cheques through a bank account, we have no hesitation to hold that the provisions of Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act are not attracted in the case of the assessee. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is hereby deleted

Mahesh Rochiram (HUF), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Piramal Chambers

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3524/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Section 254(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

Difference of Rs. 2,82,02,500/-. As, The AO erred in adding such difference as the Income from Other Sources under section 56(2)(vii)(b), considering the date of Registration as the Date of Purchases. 3. The AO has claimed that the buyer and seller accepted the Sales ... Payment. The claim of the AO is completely unjustified. 4. Further, as rightly mentioned in the earlier notice issued by AO about Section 56(2)(vii)(b) Section 56(2)(vii)(b) says that:- 56[2] In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section

Bhavesh Jayanti Sondarwa, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3009/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Bhavesh Jayanti Sondarwa Ito Ward 19(1)(1) A/1, 6Th Floor, Room No. 603 Room No. 501 Samrat Ashok Chs, S.K. Vs. Piramal Chambers Rathod Marg, Ambedkar Lalbaug, Parel Nagar, Mahalaxmi Mumbai-400 012. Mumbai-400 034. Pan : Cnpps2949G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pravin SalunkheFor Respondent: Shri Navin Gandhi, CA

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(a)Section 149(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

above cited appeal, the Ld. AO has added an amount of Rs. 1.08 crore for the income returned by appellant under section 56(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act because there is a difference in the value of property shown in the document as purchase value and the value

DCIT-CC-6(1), Mumbai, Bkc, Kautilya Bhawan vs. Shailendra Rameshchandra Rathi, Pune

ITA 2924/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi and Ms Aadnya Bhandari, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Mr. R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(14)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69A

kind held by an assesser, whether or not connected with his business or profession; is a capital asset and accordingly deeming provision of section 56(2)(x) will apply on the assessee? ii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CITYA ... tabulated above. Addition has been made on account of difference between the purchase price and the stamp duty value by applying provisions of section 56(2)(x). In the course of first appeal, AYs 2020-21 and 2021-22 assessee submitted that land purchased by the assessee are agriculture land

DCIT-CC-6(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Shailendra Rameshchandra Rathi, Pune

ITA 2923/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi and Ms Aadnya Bhandari, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Mr. R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(14)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69A

Amit Sharma, Gurugram vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Gurugram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3231/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sh. Yogesh Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 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

Paras and Shubham Chaudhary Legal Heir of Kanhaiya Lal, Panchkula vs. ITO, Ward 2, Panchkula

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1236/CHANDI/2016[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Chandigarh24 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Rishab Gupta & Shri Mukesh Aggarwal,CAsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 10(37)Section 18Section 28Section 4Section 5

There was one more issue raised during the course of hearing. Our attention was drawn to Section 145B as well as Section 56(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act. Section 56(2)(viii) provides “income by way of an interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation refer ... that the issue in this judgement was “whether penalty u/s 271 is imposable upon the assesse or not ?”, but while making reference to Section 56(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, Hon’ble Court has observed that this amendment has been brought on the Statute Book w.e.f

Bandu Baburao Chavan, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Nashik

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

ITA 2130/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

A.Y.2013-14 was apparently unjustified on facts of the case. 4] The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) taxing the difference between actual consideration and stamp duty valuation of land were introduced only w.e.f. A.Y.2014 therefore, they were not applicable ... under appeal i.e. A.Y.2013 -14 and hence, there was no reason to confirm any addition for A.Y.2013-14 by relying upon the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 2 ITA No.2130/PUN/2024 [A] 5] Without prejudice to the above grounds, the appellant submits that the assessment proceedings were

Sama Sangeeta Reddy Rep. by Gpa Holder Sama Sunil Kumar Reddy, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 680/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, KA Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Learned First Appellate Authority in the facts and circumstances of the case, failed to appreciate the fact that since the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, themselves are not applicable to facts of the case, no addition whatsoever is warranted. 4. The Learned First Appellate Authority ... additional area of about ac.1.5 gts. Therefore, the additional land which was received by the partners over and above the Court compromise attracts section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the IT Act, 1961. The land received by the partners over and above 3.00 acres as worked-out according to their

Kamala Pitaram Choudhary, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4940/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri V. D. ParmarFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 80C

which the registration value was Rs. 65,76,000/-. Hence, the difference of Rs. 5,76,000/- as per Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act was proportionately added to the extent of Rs.2,85,000/-. The learned Assessing Officer ('ld. A.O.' for short) then passed the assessment order

Pranoo Financial Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 13(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4580/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi & Ms. Sruti KalyanikarFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan

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

premium of INR.80/- per share. According to the Assessee the aforesaid premium was determined after taking into consideration the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act read with Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 [for short ‘IT Rules’]. As per Rule 11UA Fair Market Value ... share premium of INR.1,25,20,000/- [1,56,500 X INR.80 per share] in the hands of the Assessee as income under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved the Assessee preferred appeal which was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) by way of impugned order

Next Estate & Projects Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 460/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, Adv. Shri OmFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, SR DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43C

purpose of attracting the provisions of Section 43CA as alleged by the revenue, it has to be noted that the proviso to Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) which was inserted by the Finance (ii) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 01.10.2009 is identically worded in which the first proviso states that when

Saurabh Ashok Agrawal, Nagpur vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle-2, Nagpur

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 224/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrysaurabh Ashok Agrawal, Dcit/Acit, Circle-2, 203, Gulmohar Apartment, Civil Nagpur. Vs. Lines, Nagpur-440 001 Pan: Agipa 1809 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Agrawal, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, Ld. CIT-D.R

Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

payments have 3 duly been reflected and rest of the amount has been paid in subsequent installments and, therefore, according to proviso to section 56(2)(vii) of the Act which prescribed that where the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration for transfer of immovable property

Ramratan Sahebrao Pundkar, Akot vs. ITO Ward - 3, Akola

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

ITA 397/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryramratan Sahebrao Ito, Ward-3, Akola Pundkar, 1, Suman Vihar, Vs. Akola Road, Akot, Maharashtra. Pan: Abppp 9146 A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 56(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH :: NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Ramratan Sahebrao ITO

Ayshabi Abdul Majid Shaikh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4615/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 250Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

account of difference of Rs. 3,12,500/- in Stamp Duty Value & Consideration paid u/s 56(2)(vii) and that section 50C and section 56(2)(vii) are identical provision and benefit given to seller of 10% of tolerance limit u/s 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 shall also ... given to buyer under section 56(2)(vii) of the act. Appellant is contending that difference between stamp duty value and consideration paid is Rs. 3,12,500/- which is less than 10percent of the value of the property. Further, appellant submitted that the section 50C and 56(2

Deluxe Recycling India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2046/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21 Assistant Commissioner Of Deluxe Recycling India Income Tax-4(1)(1), Private Limited Mumbai 13 17 Dady Sheth Agiary Vs. Lane, Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002 (Pan: Aaacd8909N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deluxe Recycling India Private Assistant Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax-4(1)(1), 13 17 Dady Sheth Agiary Lane, Mumbai Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002 (Pan: Aaacd8909N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56Section 56(2)(x)

ground no.2 is concerned, it is a settled position of law that the tolerance limit was increased from 5% to 10% in section 56(2)(x) by Finance Act, 2020 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 which is held to be applicable retrospectively, it being curative in nature and therefore would apply retrospectively from ... increased to 10% applied w.e.f. 01.04.2003 when the provisions of section 50C were introduced. 3.7. It is also noted that third proviso to section 56(2)(vii) provides reference to section 50C for determining the valuation of the property by Valuation Officer. The third proviso to section 50C provides that

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Deluxe Recycling India Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 1969/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56Section 56(2)(x)

Debasis Das, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward 24(1), Hooghly

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

ITA 869/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarmadebasis Das, Vs Ito, Ward-24 (1), Hooghly Motherland Nursing Home, Dankuni, Hooghly-712224 Pan No. :Akfpd 3436 J (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.P.Datta, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manjunatha G, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 17.03.2025 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2020-2021, On The Following Grounds :- 1. That The Addition A Sum Of Rs. 44,95,500/- Is Bad. Illegal & Arbitrary In Nature. 2. That Without Considering The Actual Purchase Consideration Of The Landed Property, The Enhance Valuation Determined By Stamp Duty Valuer Is Mere A Guess Work & Such Enhanced Valuation Is Without Any Basis. Hence Such Enhancement Shall Liable To Be Quashed. 3. That The Assessing Officer Ought To Have Considered The Alternative Remedy Which Are Available In Income Tax Act & Refer This Matter To The Dvo For Fresh Valuation. 4. That On The Basis Of Mere Difference Between Stamp Duty Valuation & Actual Sale Consideration Shall Not Be The Sole Determination For Such Unlawful & Illegal Addition. Hence The Benefit Of Law Which Are Available & Prescribed In The Act Shall Be Taken Into Consideration At The Time Of Such Determination Of Such Income Tax Liability.

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Datta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CIT-Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(x)

with assessee’s wife Smt. Nineesha Das. The Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain as to why the provision of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act cannot be invoked and difference between sale consideration and stamp duty value cannot be assessed as income from other sources ... apply the fair market value as determined by the DVO, after considering relevant sale consideration as per the registered deed in terms of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated in the open court

Kbn Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1455/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankarkbn Infrastructure Private V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Limited बनाम 3(2)(3), Room No. 673A, 6Th B-426, Nbc Complex, Plot No. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 43, Sector-11, Cbd Belapur, Mumbai – 400020, Navi Mumbai - 400 614, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadck3271B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal,ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT-DR)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 271DSection 68Section 69Section 69A

relevant year which was not declared as resultant capital gain/loss. The AO opined that the issue required examination in the light of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act and Rule 11UA to examine the correct and actual Fair Market Value of shares claimed to be sold. The assessee stated ... more than the fair market value claiming that P a g e | 6 A.Y. 2018-19 KBN Infrastructure Private Limited provisions of section 56(2)(x) and section 56(2)(viib) were not attracted. 6. However, the ld.CIT(A) still found shortcomings in the reply inter alia holding that from