“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)

Albert Joseph Rozario, Mumbai vs. ITO, Int. Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1168/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2018-19 Albert Joseph Rozario, Ito, (Int. Tax), Circle-4(1)(1), B-311, 5Th Wing, Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, Inlaks Park, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Yari Road, Versova, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Andheri West, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400058 Bandra East, Pan : Afvpr6139P Mumbai-400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Dharan Gandhi For Revenue : Shri Sridhar G. Menon, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-07-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 R/W 144C(13) Of The Act Dt. 30-12-2024, Consequent To The Directions Given By The Ld. Drp-1, Mumbai-3, U/S 144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 30-11-2024 Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay.) 2018-19. 2. Briefly The Facts Of The Case Are That Basis Information Available Through The Insight Portal That The Assessee Had Purchased Immoveable Properties Amounting To Rs. 8,31,45,549/- & Has Received Interest

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar G. Menon, Sr.DR

Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)(x)Section 69

directed to intimate these directions to the AO of Mrs. Cecilia Rozario. Regarding the addition made by the AO, invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act, the assessee‟s objections were disposed off as not maintainable and addition made by the AO was held

Pandurang Kashinath Bhilare, Pune vs. ITO, (It) Ward 1, Pune

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 198/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.198/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pandurang Kashinath Bhilare, V The Income Tax Rh 05, Insignia, Lane 2, S Department, Ito,(It) Pashan Sus Road, N.I.A.S.O., Ward-1, Pune. Murkutenagar(N.V.), Pune – 411045. Maharashtra. Pan: Ajxpb9871A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Assessee In Person Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2025

Section 147Section 43CSection 56(2)(x)

view of the aforesaid facts & discussion it is concluded that no cogent and forceful facts with regard to non-applicability of provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Income-tax Act have been furnished by assessee in his case. The assessee has put the onus on the builder ... strictly governed by the provisions of section 43CA and the purchaser has nothing to do with this. As the violation of provisions of Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Income-tax Act(with effect from 01/04/2017) is prima facie apparent from the copy of index-ii and provisos

Kalptaru Infrabuild, Ahmedabad vs. PCIT-3 Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 750/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

valorem stamp duty rate of 4.9%, the stamp duty valuation of the property worked out to Rs.1,26,12,245/-. According to Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act, where a property is purchased for less than its stamp duty value, the difference is taxable as “Income from ... stamp duty valuation, had considered submissions made on 14.03.2023, and referred the matter to the DVO under Section 55A. The assessee submitted that Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) was not applicable as it applied only to Kalptaru Infrabuild vs. PCIT Asst.Year –2017-18 - 3– individuals and HUFs

Jagdish Jamaklal Mansukhani, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 7(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2513/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jainam Sonaiya/ Shri Vishal

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

made by the Assessing Officer on account of income of share premium as per the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) r.w. rule 11UA, which is bad in law. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed ... confirming the action of Assessing Officer of making an addition of the share premium amount without appreciating the fact that the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(c) clearly says that only when an individual or a Hindu Undivided Family "receives" any property for consideration that is less than

Ayubali Khairbali Qureshi, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward, 16(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6851/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriayubali Khairbali Quresh Vs National Faceless Assessment 30-4/A/4, Almarwah Chs, Unit,Delhi / Ito, Ward No.16(2)(1), Millat Nagar, Andheri (W), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 053 Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aaepq2461P Applicant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirat Ramawat (SR.DR.)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 56(2)(x)

Income from other sources. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and accordingly, the assessment was completed after making addition under section 56(2)(x) of the Act towards difference in set-forth value and the value adopted

Rama Rajendra Sawant, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(3)(6), Mumbai, Piramal Chamber

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1835/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Rama Rajendrasawant Ito, Ward-23(3)(6), Mumbai 13/11, R.S. Compound, T.J. Road, Vs Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Sewree, Mumbai-400015. Mumbai – 400012. [Pan No. Azlps1612C] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

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

erred in adding 50% the difference of purchase price and stamp duty value of the jointly purchased residential property as income under section 56(2)(x) even though the same has been offered to tax in the return of the first owner Mr. Rajendra Sawant and the assessee has hardly ... difference vis-à-vis ready reckoner rate and agreement value is only 7.00% and within the tolerance range as per prescribed in section 56(2)(x). Thus, no addition is liable to be made against the assessee. Even otherwise the property was purchased from the finances arranged / paid

Aavishkar Oral Strips Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 369/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Bhupal Goud, C.A

Section 115JSection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

erred both in law and on facts in and determined excess share premium of Rs.1,04,89,040/- and brought to tax under section 56(2)(vii)(b), which is not a valid act and order. That the learned AO, has failed to appreciate the valuation method adopted ... Value (“NAV”) method, and determined the Fair Market Value (“FMV”) of shares accordingly, resulting in an addition of Rs.1,04,89,040/- under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 4. | Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who confirmed

Tutor Investment& Finance Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 1736/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the ITAT, Mumbai Bench “E”, which, vide its order in ITA No. 6752/Mum/2017 dated 15.06.2018, upheld the revisionary order passed under Section 263 of the Act.

For Appellant: Shri Snehal ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 263Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

revised the said assessment order passed by the Ld. AO under section 143(3), on the ground that the implications of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act were not adequately examined. The said revision order was challenged by the assessee before the ITAT, Mumbai Bench “E”, which ... framed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act and made an addition of Rs.1.40 crores under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The said addition pertained to the issuance of 10 lakh shares by the assessee at Rs.200 per share

Income-Tax Officer - 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Acute Retail Infra Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4570/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailito – 12(1)(1), Room No.129, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 ............... Appellant Pan : Aabca3835H V/S Acute Retail Infra Private Limited, Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar, ……………… Respondent Jogeshwary Vikroli Link Road, Jogeshwary, Mumbai - 400060 Maharashtra Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

r.w.s. 144B of the Act, made an addition of Rs.62,82,86,580/- being the share application money received by the assessee under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, by observing as follows: - “4.6 Conclusion drawn:- Regarding share application money amounting to Rs. 62,82,86,580/- credited ... said amount of share application money amounting to Rs. 62,82,86,580/- is treated as income from other sources in terms of section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which shall be added to the Total Income of the assessee company.” 4. The learned

Ketan Himatlal Mehta, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. NFAC, Not Applicable

Accordingly, order the CIT(A) is overturned and the addition of LTCG of INR.6,30,873/- is deleted. Thus, Ground No. 3 raised by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2497/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: making this addition in the Appellate Order. Reasons assigned by him are wrong and insufficient. Therefore, Appellant prays for the deletion the addition of Rs.6,30,873 as confirmed by the Learned CIT(A).

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Kavita P. Kaushik

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 50CSection 56(2)(x)

Vide order dated, 26/03/2024, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition of INR.1,35,17,669/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. Further, the CIT(A) also made addition of INR.6,30,873/- holding the same to be Long Term 2 Assessment Year ... 2 raised by the Assessee are directed against the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition of INR.1,35,17,669/- made under Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. While Ground No.3 is directed against the enhancement of income done by the CIT(A) by directing

Abilash Rao Joseph, Usa vs. Income Tax Officer (International Taxation)-1, Hyderabad

ITA 105/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri A V Raghu RamFor Respondent: Sri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

incorrect and unsustainable on facts and in law. 2. The AO/DRP erred in making addition of Rs.26,37,000 by invoking provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(il) of the Income Tax Act which was introduced by Finance Act, 2013, w.e.f. 1.4.2014. The authorities below failed to appreciate that ... payments was made in the Fy 2010-11 and AOS was entered into on 21.03.2012, during which period, the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) was not on the Income Tax Act. 3. Without prejudice to the above ground, the authorities below failed to appreciate that since

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Aachman Vanijya Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue and cross-objection by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 385/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT, D/R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 1ISection 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viia)

case and in law, whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 56(2)(vii)(a) of the Act amounting to Rs. 7,85,55,233/-, considering that the assessee had submitted only confirmation letter regarding the transfer of shares ... transfer form and proof of payment, how did the Ld. CIT(A) determine that the shares were purchased prior to the applicability of section 56(2) read with section 1IUA of the Act." 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether

Lupin Investments Private Limited (Successor to Zyma Laboratories Limited), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 14(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4635/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, Shri Pratik PoddarFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT, D/R

Section 115QSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 35ASection 56(2)(viia)Section 80G

Thus, the appeal order should be set aside as being passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Ground No. 2 - Addition under section 56(2)(viia) of the Act 2.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming ... addition of Rs.34,71,17,122 made by the learned AO under section 56(2)(viia) of the Act on buy back of shares, without appreciating that in case of buy back of unlisted shares, the taxability is based on distributed income as per section 115QA

Karam Vir Yadav, Gurgaon vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC

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

ITA 2605/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmakaramvir Yadav, Vs. Assessing Officer, 1135, Sector 46, Nfac, Delhi. Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Abipy5863E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ranjan Chopra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2025 Date Of Order : 09.07.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 29.03.2024 For Assessment Year 2020-21 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Assessee Company, 1961. 2. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Pr. Cit Erred In Passing Order U/S 263 Of The Act, So Much So That, The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Do Not Satisfy The Statutory Twin Conditions Prescribed Under Section 263 Of The Act, Viz., (I) That The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri Ranjan Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28

enhanced compensation is exempt, has been stated by the jurisdictional High Court of Punjab & Haryana or Supreme Court? (iii) Whether the provisions of section 56(2)(viii), 57(iv) read with section 145A are applicable in the case of assessee? (iv) Whether the AO is exempt from jurisdictional High Court ... compensation and added 50% of interest amount received on compensation received from collector of compulsory acquisition of agriculture land as the provision of Section 56(2)(viii) and 57(iv) read with sub-section (10) of section 145B of the Income Tax Act, 1961in my income and taxes

Jesus Calls, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

In the result, disallowance made by the lower authorities is deleted and appeal of the assessee for AY 2019-20 is allowed

ITA 798/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.796/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2019-20 आयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.797/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2020-21 आयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.798/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr. V.Nagaprasad, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. M.K.Biju, CIT DR

Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)

have been made in the case of the assessee and the ground raised by the assessee is hereby allowed. 7.3 The provisions of section 56(2)(x)(a) stipulates that cash gifts received in excess of Rs.50,000/- are to be treated as income u/s.56

Jesus Calls, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

In the result, disallowance made by the lower authorities is deleted and appeal of the assessee for AY 2019-20 is allowed

ITA 797/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr. V.Nagaprasad, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. M.K.Biju, CIT DR

Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)

Jesus Calls, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

In the result, disallowance made by the lower authorities is deleted and appeal of the assessee for AY 2019-20 is allowed

ITA 796/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Mr. V.Nagaprasad, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. M.K.Biju, CIT DR

Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)

ACIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Mangalprabhat Gumanmal Lodha, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2246/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Seth, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. D/R

Section 24Section 56(2)(vii)

assessee." 5. "On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates the taxation of the difference between the stamp duty value and the actual ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) failed to take into account the amendment to Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) w.e.f. 1st April 2021, which further clarified the scope of the provisions relating to the taxation of the difference between the stamp duty

Thermodyne Dynamics Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward -17(3), Hyderabad

ITA 500/HYD/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Us :

For Appellant: Shri Pawan KumarFor Respondent: Shri B. Balakrishna -CIT-

Section 11USection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 56

case. 5. Whether the learned Authorities below are justified in making the addition of an amount being Rs. 18,03,62,857/- under section 56[2][viia] of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Whether the learned Authorities below are correct in computed fair market ... aforesaid company for a consideration which was less than its aggregate Fair Market Value (for short, “F.M.V.”), therefore, why an addition under Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act be not made in its case. In reply, the assessee 5 Thermodyne Dynamics Private Limited Vs. ITO company objected

Satyam Sureka, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Cir-3(3), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the different assessees are partly allowed

ITA 152/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey] I.T.(S.S).A. No. 13 /Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Satyam Sureka Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata

Section 115BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56(2)Section 68

erred in law and on facts by confirming the addition of Rs. 4,96,568/- made by the Ld. Assessing officer under Section 56(2) of the Income Tax Act, treating the amount received from M/s Satyam Sureka Educational Trust as a gift taxable under section 56(2 ... same being any amount given for no consideration or in the nature of gift, which are covered in the scope of Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. The relevant findings of the ITAT in the said case are as under: " 8.Now coming to the findings of the Ld. PCIT