← 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)

Sachin Vasant Masurkar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai

ITA 2060/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.2060/Mum/2025 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Sachin Vasant V/S. Dcit Circle 16(3), Masurkar Mumbai बिाम Office No. 104, 201, 1St Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai Floor, National 400002 Insurance Building Dn Road, Mumbai G.P.O., Mumbai 400001 स्थायी लेखा सुं./जीआइआर सुं./Pan/Gir No: Afwpm9401L .. Appellant/अपीलाथी Respondent/प्रधिवादी धििााररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Nishit Gandhi राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Aditya M. Rai- Sr Dr 18.07.2025 स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26.08.2025 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 28.01.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal. “1. Natural Justice

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai- SR DR
Section 250Section 270Section 354Section 56(2)(x)

ground basis never confronted to the Assessee. Such an action is grossly unjust 2 On a plain reading of the proviso to section 56(2)(x) it is evident that once the Assessee disputes the SDV before the AO, it is mandatory to refer the matter to DVO for valuation ... Admittedly, this was not done. Therefore, the entire addition must be deleted since the same is contrary to the mandate of section 56(2)(x) 3. A similar provision is contained in section 50C of the Income Tax Act and the language of section 50C [so far as reference

Vimal Kumar Banka, Kanpur vs. ITO Ward-1(2)(1), Kanpur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 25/LKW/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Vimal Kumar Banka V. The Ito 5/P/25, Dabauli Ward 1(2)(1) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Afzb1801J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 24.11.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That As Per The Assessing Officer (Ao), The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Sold An Immovable Property, Jointly Held With Mrs Kanchan Talwar, During The Year Under Consideration For A Consideration Of Rs.10,00,000/- & The Value Of The Same As Per The Stamp Valuation Authority Was Rs.23,15,000/-. The Assessing Officer (Ao), Therefore, Reopened The Case Of The Assessee Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151

consideration actually received, it was the bounding duty of the Assessing Officer to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer in terms of section 56(2) of the Act to determine the fair market value of the property as on the date of sale that having not been done

Harmel Singh, Parwanoo vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Parwanoo, Parwanoo

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 70/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.70/Chd/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 बनाम Harmel Singh, The Ito, Mella Property Near Kasauli Ward Chouwk, Sector 2, Shimla Parwanoo. National Highway, Himachal Pradesh. Parwanoo. "थायीलेखासं./Pan No. Abnpd1482P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) िनधा""रतीकीओरसे/Assessee By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A. & Ms. Shruti Khandewal, Advocate राज कीओरसे/ Revenue By :Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit (Sr. Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28-05-2025 उदघोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21-08-2025 आदेश/Order The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07-11-2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi[Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Is Aggrieved Of The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A. &For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT (Sr. DR)
Section 51

amount in the year under consideration. Even, there is no forfeiture of this amount in the year under consideration hence the provisions of section 56(2) (ix) which provides for treating the amount of forfeiture of earnest money as income from other sources, will also be not applicable