“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)

Rameshchandra Chhabildas Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle - 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3520/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 56(2)(x)

considered as full value of consideration and the assessee’s eligible for benefit of first and second proviso to section 56(2)(x). The CBDT also issued circular no. 3/2017 wherein in para 29.2 in said circular it has been clarified that if the date of agreement fixing the amount ... assessee and the value of asset determined by stamp valuation authority. The ld. AR while carrying us through first and second proviso to section 56(2)(x) and would submit that the lower authorities clearly disregarded such provisions. The ld. AR further submits that in case of other co-owner

Sternal Buildcon Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 24(2), Delhi, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 99/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 196Section 40

amount at Rs. 1,63,50,103/- on the basis of circle rate on which stamp duty was paid in the light of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act and directed the difference of amount between circle rate and actual amount paid by the assessee ... year), further the addition of Rs.93,50,103/- (Rs.1,63,50,103 - Rs. 70,00,000) is made by first appellate authority invoking section 56(2)(yii)(b )(ii) of the Act. Ld. AR relied on the order of ITAT Delhi 'SMC Bench in the case of M/s Toffee Agricultural

Mr. Vijaykumar Pramanad Sethi, Jalna vs. ITO Ward 1, Jalna

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

ITA 464/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva

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

which was less than the purchase price and therefore the differential amount of Rs.21,59,500/- was covered by the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The Ld. AO therefore issued a show cause notice to the assessee proposing the addition of 21,59,500/- as income

Naseem Ahmed, Greater Noida vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Noida

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 658/DEL/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmanaseem Ahmed, Income Tax Officer, Vill: Haldouni, Post Kuleshra, Ward-2(3), Greater Noida,Gautambudh Vs. Noida Nagar, U.P.201306. Pan-Aijpa1555F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Raghu Raj Singh, Adv. & Shri Vijay Singhla, Ca. Department By Shridheeraj Kumar Jain,Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.12.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of Order Dated 09.12.2019 Made By Assessing Officer(Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Ao’) U/S 144 R.W.S 147Of The Act For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Of Rs.2,35,000/- & Had Also Claimed Credit For Tds Of Rs.9,13,823/- The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issuing Of Notice 148 Of The Act On The Basis Of Information In Possession Of The Department That The Assessee Had Received Interest On Enhanced Compensation Of Rs.8,84,023/- From New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) During The Financial Year 2015-16, Relevant To Assessment Year 2016-17 On Which Tds Of Rs.8,84,023/- Was Deducted By The Authority. The Assessee Had Filed Return But Assessing Officer Was Of The View That The Amount Of Rs.88,40,230/- Was In The Nature Of Interest

Section 10(37)Section 144Section 145BSection 250Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

nature of interest 2 Naseem Ahmed vs. ITO on compensation/enhanced of compensation land, which was liable to be taxed under the provisions of Section 56(2)(viii) read with section 145B of the Act. Thus, the addition has been sustained by Ld. CIT(A) relying on the decision

Devaraya Pillai Subramanian, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Salem

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 561/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 561/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year:2017-18 Devaraya Pillai Subramanian, Ito 58A, Sathyamoorthy Street, Vs. Ward – 1(1), Salem – 636 001. Salem. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aijps-3267-J] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, Jcit

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, JCIT

Section 56(2)(viii)

Rs.44,93,229/- as income of the appellant under the head :-2-: ITA. No:561/Chny/2025 "Income from Other Sources" in terms of Section 56(2)(viii) r.w.s 145B(i) of the Act in the computation of total tax payable without assigning proper reasons and justification. 3) The NFAC, Delhi failed ... appreciate that the provisions in Section 56(2)(viii) of the Act had no application to the present facts and in circumstances of the case, thereby vitiating the findings in relation thereto. 4) The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that the pre-requisite conditions required for making an addition

Rahul Rameshchandra Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(3)(6), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 3 of appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2967/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Rahul Rameshchandra Jain Ito, Ward – 22(3)(6), Mumbai 7A/701, Shanti Niketan Chs, Vs Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Gandhinagar, Dr. E Moses Road, Mumbai – 400012. Worli, Mumbai – 400018. [Pan: Akgpj2747M] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 254(1)Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

assessing officer accepted the report of DVO and accordingly made addition of difference of Rs. 1,12,000/- as deemed income under section 56(2)(vii)(b). 4. The assessing officer further noted that assessee has made cash deposit in ICICI Bank of Rs. 11,30,000/- which ... assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A). Before ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed statement of fact. On the addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b), the assessee stated that there difference value declared by assessee and value determined by DVO is less than 10%, therefore, no addition

Suman Jain, Sagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Sagar

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

ITA 99/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur01 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

short) and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.31,67,705/- by making addition of Rs.28,88,755/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal in the office of learned CIT(A). Vide impugned order dated 22/03/2024, the assessee

Anup Majee, Purulia vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2(1), Kolkata

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 649/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 153ASection 153DSection 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

findings and observations made in the order dated March 30, 2022 are perverse 9. For that the addition made under section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer is arbitrary, erroneous, invalid and contrary to law and the findings and observations made

Anup Majee, Purulia vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2(1), Kolkata

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 648/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 153ASection 153DSection 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

Anup Majee, Bhamuria vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2(1), West Bengal

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 647/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 153ASection 153DSection 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

Anil Kumar Gupta, Rewa vs. ITO- Ward-1, Rewa

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

ITA 160/JAB/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 253(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

23/03/2022, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.6,62,950/- by making addition of Rs.4,70,250/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal in the office of learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 09/05/2024, the assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Devanayagam Finance Private Limited, Kolkata

ITA 634/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.634/Chny/2025 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Devanayagam Finance Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Vs. 3/2, Ground Floor, Central Circle-2(1), Marcus Square, Chennai. Kolkata – 700 007. [Pan: Aabcd 0465C]

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A HIFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)

erred in deleting addition of Rs.1,43,75, 250/ Rs. 1,42,68, 825/- & Rs.1,37,00, 250/- made merely for quoting Section 56(2) (x)(c) is erroneous for this case & the Ld. CIT(A) has erroneously relied on relied on technicalities rather than substance, failing to recognize that

Pavan Vitthal Gaikwad, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

ITA 3527/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri. R. A. Dhyani, CIT DRFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(X)Section 56(2)(x)

INR.86,49,444/, 2 Assessment Year 2020-21 being Assessee’s share of deemed income taxable as Income From Other Sources as per Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Act. Subsequently, notice was issued by Ld. PCIT under Section 263(1) of the Act as the Ld. PCIT ... verify the difference between the sale consideration and the stamp duty value, and examine the taxability or otherwise of the same under Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Act. Since the Assessing Officer had acted within the scope of limited scrutiny, it could not be said that

Gemini Dyeing and Printing Mills Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2921/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Nagpal, AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 56(2)

which the AO made an addition of Rs. 1,39,00,000 treating the net amount of deposits and withdrawals as addition under section 56(2) 3 ITA 2921/Mum/2025 M/s Gemini Dyeing and Printing Mills Ltd. of the Act. On further appeal the CIT(A) set aside the order

Selina N. Sheth, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -17(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the ground No

ITA 2352/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Selina N. Sheth Ito, Ward – 17(3)(1), M/S. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Esplanade House, 2Nd Floor, Mumbai – 400020. 29 Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400001. [Pan: Aabps9851L] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 10(38)Section 148Section 2(14)Section 254(1)Section 57

authorities) until the insertion of sub clause (xviid) by Finance Act 2023 w.e.f. 1" April, 2024 which, thereafter, includes any sum referred to Section 56(2)(xiii). Section 56(2)(xiii) was simultaneously inserted by the Finance Act 2023 w.e.f. 1 April, 2024 which 5 Selina N. Sheth has made ... certain Life Insurance Policies, other than a ULIP, which Policies are not exempt under section 10(10D). Prior to this insertion in Section 56(2)(xiii) and correspondingly in Section 2(24)(xviid), there was no provision to tax the maturity proceeds of a Life Insurance Policy as income. This

Somen Bhattacharjee, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tinsukia Assam

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

ITA 181/GTY/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati27 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm Income Tax Officer, Somen Bhattacharjee Ward-1, Tinsukia Assam B/3/11 Northen Park Bansdroni, Sector-3, Tinsukia, Assam Vs. Kolkata-700070, West Bengal Pin-786125 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acapb0292M Assessee By : Shri Prasanjit Das, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kausik Ray, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Prasanjit Das, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, DR

Section 56(2)(x)

thus, there is a difference of ₹31,80,000/-. The ld. AO accordingly, issued show cause notice as to why the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act should be invoked in respect of the different of ₹31,80,000/-, which was replied by the assessee. The reply

Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Sakariya, Rajkot vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 318/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.318/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Sakariya The Pr.Commissioner Of बनाम At Khajuri Gundala Income Tax-1, Rajkot. Post Station: Vavdi Vs. Amarnagar, Khajuri Gundala. Pan : Aslps 7027 E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ld.Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 263

owners as per their shares. The assessee also submitted before the ld.Pr.CIT that the interest received on enhanced compensation is not taxable under section 56(2)(viii) of the Act, as it is a part of the main compensation. 7.However, the ld.Pr.CIT rejected the above contentions of the assessee ... explain if the Interest received on enhanced compensation has been offered to tax under the head 'income from other sources' as per the section 56(2)(viii) r.w.s. 145B(1') of the IT. Act, 1961. • Kindly submit the instrument of acquisition/transfer of the property. Document supporting enhancement of compensation. • Kindly

Gurmeet Singh, Punjab vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Ropar, Punjab

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 713/CHANDI/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 713/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Gurmeet Singh, Ito, बनाम 939, Type Ii, Ward 2(2), Nuhon Colony Ghanauli, Ropar Vs. Rupnagar 140113 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ageps7897P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Virtual Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Parikshit Aggarwal,Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Surinder Kaur Waraich, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27-08-2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27-08-2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri. Parikshit Aggarwal,CAFor Respondent: Smt. Surinder Kaur Waraich, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

under the head “Income from other sources,” on the ground that cousins do not fall within the definition of “relative” as provided in section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were thereafter initiated and penalty of ₹97,743/- was levied on the assessee ... gifts in question were received from cousins and that such relations do not fall in the definition of “relative” as envisaged under section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. However, the surrounding circumstances show that the assessee, being an agriculturist with limited exposure to legal provisions, acted under a bona

Gurmeet Singh, Punjab vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Ropar, Punjab

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 712/CHANDI/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 712/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Gurmeet Singh, Ito, बनाम 939, Type Ii, Ward 2(2), Nuhon Colony Ghanauli, Ropar Vs. Rupnagar 140113 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ageps7897P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Virtual Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Surinder Kaur Waraich, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27-08-2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27-08-2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Surinder Kaur Waraich, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

Singh and Shri Nirmal Singh. The Assessing Officer held that these persons do not fall within the definition of “relative” as given in section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. Consequently, the amount of ₹3,00,000/- was treated as income from other sources and added to the total income ... hand, strongly relied upon the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the statute has provided an exhaustive definition of “relative” in section 56(2)(vii) and cousins are not included therein. Hence, the addition has rightly been made and sustained. 9. I have considered the rival submissions

DCIT, CC-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Goldmine Commodities Private Limited, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1260/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1260/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Goldmine Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, बनाम/ Goldmine House, V/S. Central Circle-1(4), 4, Niranjan-Nirakar Society, Ahmedabad. Near Shreyas Railway Crossing, Ambawadi Ahmedabad-380007. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaccg1295L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Kishor Goyal, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.04.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] For Assessment Year 2016-17. The Acit, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”], Dcit Vs. Goldmine Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Goyal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 56(2)(viib)

figures and therefore could not be relied upon for determining the fair market value of shares. 8. On these premises, the AO invoked section 56(2)(viib). The AO determined the excess over FMV at Rs. 109.70 per share and, applying it to 6,00,000 shares, quantified the addition ... No.1007/2019 and CM Appeal No. 54134/2019 [TS- 5099-HC-2021(Delhi)-O], stating that the AO could have determined FMV after invoking section 56(2)(viib) only by rejecting the valuer’s report based on one of the prescribed methods and conducting his own valuation; that “Courts have repeatedly held