“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)

Mohd Arif, Etawah vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(5), Etwah, Etawah

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

ITA 271/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17] Mohd. Arif, Income Tax Officer, 68, Huiganj Pachraha, Etawah, Ward-2(2)(5), Income Tax Office, Etawah, Uttar Pradesh-206001 Vs Civil Lines, Etawah, Uttar Pradesh-207001 Pan-Anapa8542J Appellant Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 282Section 54Section 56(2)(vii)

Assessing Officer also show-caused to make another addition of Rs.97,14,000/- by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) on the ground that the stamp value of the property shown to have been purchased for Rs.15 lakhs on the date of purchase was Rs.1

Kailashchandra Haumanprasad Sugla, Solapur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Solapur

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

ITA 1555/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1555/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kailashchandra Haumanprasad V The Income Tax Officer, Sugla, S Ward-1(1), Solapur. 45/15, Samrat Chowk, Budhwar Peth, Prabhakar Nagar H/S, Solapur-413001. Maharashtra. Pan: Ahsps3244B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-3, Chennai Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16Dated 12.10.2023, Emanating From Order U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 26.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 272A(1)(c)Section 41(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

2)(vii)(b) by disregarding appellant's contention that said land is purchased by the appellant as stock in trade therefore provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) are not applicable, therefore the entire addition needs to be deleted 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Aathmika Holdings Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stand dismissed and the

ITA 836/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(x)Section 92C

notice that, upon receipt of the order of the TPO, the AO issued a show cause notice dated 07.12.2022, proposing to invoke Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, on the premise that the shares acquired by the assessee from G3, Singapore was at a price [Rs.12.43/share] lower than ... Rules’) and that no other method or price could be adopted to arrive at the FMV, for the purposes of application of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. According to the assessee, the prices at which the assessee acquired shares of IG3 and ETL Power was commensurate with their

Pritiben Hiteshbhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(5), Surat

ITA 1247/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

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

land of Block No. 128 and addition of Rs. 1,17,947/- qua Block No. 127 thereby adding Rs. 8,12,020/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b). The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of Assessing Officer by simply holding that the Assessing Officer was bound to adopt

Prerna Pramod Kadam, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(2)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 891/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 2003 & 2004/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & In The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal “J(Smc)” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 891/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

husband is already completed without any additions under section 69A. 3. The Hon J C IT has erred in making addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of Rs 5,30,000/- being the Difference in the value as per Agreement and Value as per the Order ... addition of the difference of Rs. 40,93,000/- between the stamp duty value and the purchase consideration paid after invoking provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. As the assessee was a co- owner of the property with her husband who had made the entire investment

Prerna Pramod Kadam, Mumbai vs. 20(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 2004/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

Prerna Pramod Kadam, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(2)(1), Lalbaug Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 2003/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

Bhavin Rasiklal Gadoya, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, Delhi

ITA 5415/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 47Section 56(2)(x)

through banking channels before the sale agreement. 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, the learned Assessing Officer erred in not appreciating a fact that as per section 56(2)(x), the provisions of section are applicable only in the cases where any immovable property is "received in any previous year". In the case ... property is still under construction and possession of the said flat has not been received till date. On that count itself, provisions of section 56(2)(x) were not applicable to the Appellant and the addition made by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and liable to be deleted

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Shriprop Properties Private Limited, Bangalore

ITA 1283/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Mrs. S. Ananthan, CA (virtually)For Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56(2)(x)

valid. 3 ITA 1172-1273-1173-1283/Chny/2025 SPL Shelters Pvt. Ltd. and Sriprop Properties Pvt. Ltd. (ii) That the provisions of section 56(2)(x) cannot be invoked in the case where the asset transferred is stock-in-trade. (iii) Without prejudice when the difference between the stamp duty ... value and the actual consideration is less than 5% then no addition can be made under section 56(2)(x). 2. The revenue's appeal in both the assessee pertains to the CIT(A) deleting the adjustment made by the AO towards stamp duty and registration charges against the consideration

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Spl Shelters Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1273/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Mrs. S. Ananthan, CA (virtually)For Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56(2)(x)

Shriprop Properties Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

ITA 1173/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Mrs. S. Ananthan, CA (virtually)For Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56(2)(x)

assessees through various grounds are as under: (i) That the proceedings under section 153C is not valid. (ii) That the provisions of section 56(2)(x) cannot be invoked in the case where the asset transferred is stock-in-trade. (iii) Without prejudice when the difference between the stamp duty ... value and the actual consideration is less than 5% then no addition can be made under section 56(2)(x). 2. The revenue's appeal in both the assessee pertains to the CIT(A) deleting the adjustment made by the AO towards stamp duty and registration charges against the consideration

Spl Shelters Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

ITA 1172/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Mrs. S. Ananthan, CA (virtually)For Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56(2)(x)

Bigstar Hotels Resorts Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 5(1), New Delhi

ITA 3351/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 250

ITA No.3351/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI "A" BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mr Chetnarayan Sitaram Singh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward-41(4)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 317/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya,ARFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan (Sr. DR)

Section 144Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

56(2)(x) of the Act; (ii) The Appellant was not in receipt of any immovable property / any property within the meaning of section 56(2)(x) of the Act during previous year; (iii) The provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act was not applicable in the case ... adequate consideration; (v) Without further prejudice, the case of the Appellant was covered by the first proviso to clause (b) of section 56(2)(x) of the Act; (vi) Without further prejudice, the stamp duty value as adopted by the A.O. was not at all fair market value

Shruthi Kishore, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 550/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Krishna Upadhya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate for Standing

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69ASection 80T

despite the appellant's clear explanation that the amount was received as wedding gifts. Wedding gifts are exempt under Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. No contrary evidence was brought on record by the AO to challenge the appellant's claim. 4. The Hon'ble CIT(A) wrongly directed ... were submitted to prove the timeline. 9.1 The learned AR submitted that these gifts are not taxable as per the second proviso to section 56(2)(vii) of the Act, which clearly states that gifts received on the occasion of marriage are not taxable. Also, section 56(2

Srirang Shamrao Deshmukh, Mumbai vs. Ward 41(3)(4), Mumba, Mumbai

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

ITA 1338/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. D/R

Section 148Section 249(4)(a)Section 250(6)Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 69Section 80C

unexplained investment being baseless, bad-in-law, illegal, unwarranted and hence be deleted. GROUND : 3 Section 56(2)(vii) Deemed income being difference between agreement value and the stamp duty valuation adopted. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

Radhey Shyam Saini, Hisar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2359/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 Vs. Pcit, Sh. Radhey Shyam Saini, H. No. 1174/334, Rohtak Ramlila Chowk, Hisar, Haryana Pan: Bxhps4356Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Kuldeep Khera, Ca Sh. Mohit Girdhar, Ca Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.07.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15, Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [In Short, The “Pcit”], Rohtak’S Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023- 24/1062878555(1), Dated 18.03.2024 Involving Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. It Emerges During The Course Of Hearing That The Sole Substantive Issue Between The Parties Is That Of Correctness Of The Learned Lower Authorities Action Assessing The Assessee’S Interest Component Of Land Acquisition Compensation U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, While Invoking Section 57(Iv) R.W.S. 56(1)(A) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The Act. 3. Learned Sr. Dr Representing The Department Vehemently Argued That The Instant Issue Is No More Res Integra In Light Of Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Cbdt (2020) 423 Itr 13 (P&H) As Well As Pcit Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi Huf (2024) 161 Taxmann.Com 301 (Del.) Wherein The Department Has Succeeded Before Their Lordships That The Impugned Interest Component Ought To Be Assessed As Income From “Other” Sources Only. 4. We Have Given Our Thoughtful Consideration To The Assessee’S Pleadings & Revenue’S Foregoing Vehement Contention. It Emerges That This Tribunal’S Recent Decision In Pawan Kumar Vs. Pcit (2024) 159 Taxmann.Com 61 (Del.-Trib.) Has Distinguished The Said Case Law As Under:

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 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 ... under section 28 of Land 4 | P a g e 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

Shammi Nagpal HUF, Hisar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2358/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. Pcit, Shammi Nagpal Huf, H. No. 7, Sector-13, Hissar, Rohtak Haryana Pan: Aazhs3505D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Kuldeep Khera, Ca Sh. Mohit Girdhar, Ca Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.07.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14, Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (In Short “The Pcit”), Rohtak’S Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023- 24/1062887031(1), Dated 19.03.2024 Involving Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. It Emerges During The Course Of Hearing That The Sole Substantive Issue Between The Parties Is That Of Correctness Of The Learned Lower Authorities Action Assessing The Assessee’S Interest Component Of Land Acquisition Compensation U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, While Invoking Section 57(Iv) R.W.S. 56(1)(A) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The Act. 3. Learned Sr. Dr Representing The Department Vehemently Argued That The Instant Issue Is No More Res Integra In Light Of Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Cbdt (2020) 423 Itr 13 (P&H) As Well As Pcit Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi Huf (2024) 161 Taxmann.Com 301 (Del.) Wherein The Department Has Succeeded Before Their Lordships That The Impugned Interest Component Ought To Be Assessed As Income From “Other” Sources Only. 4. We Have Given Our Thoughtful Consideration To The Assessee’S Pleadings & Revenue’S Foregoing Vehement Contention. It Emerges That This Tribunal’S Recent Decision In Pawan Kumar Vs. Pcit (2024) 159 Taxmann.Com 61 (Del.-Trib.) Has Distinguished The Said Case Law As Under:

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

Ipsaa Holdings Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle 4(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 2720/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 56

share whereas assessee has allotted share at premium of Rs.30/- to Rs.100/- to share applicants. Therefore, according to him, the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act is attracted, he determined the share premium issued in both tranches to the extent of Rs.6.82 crores. Accordingly, he calculated ... identify any sort of fallacy in crucial submissions submitted on behalf of the assessee, interalia, to the effect that the provisions of section 56(2) being in the nature of anti abuse measure are aimed at preventing mala fide transactions and to tackle the problem of black money were never

Aman Holdings Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT - 1, Delhi

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

ITA 660/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Meenal Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR

Section 127(2)Section 127(2)(a)Section 143(3)Section 263

income vis-a-vis high investments and loans.' On review, the PCIT observed that the AO failed to examine the applicability of section 56(2)(viia) concerning the purchase of un quoted equity shares below fair market value, as per Rule 11 UA. Concluding that the assessment order was erroneous