← 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)

Raj Kumar Sirwani, Mandla vs. Income Tax Officer, Mandla Ward, Mandla

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

ITA 37/JAB/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 Raj Kumar Sirwani V. Income Tax Officer, Pamnani Chowk, Subhash Mandla Ward, Madhya Pradesh- Income Office, Mandla, 481661. Madhya Pradesh-481661. Pan:Ausps7713E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Dr. H. S. Modh, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 20 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Dr. H. S. Modh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

against the returned income at Rs.3,17,790/-. 3. That the addition made for Rs.7,62,500/- on account of provision of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of IT Act, 1961, is unjustified. 4. That the addition confirmation of purchase of immovable property at Rs.5,91,550/- considered unexplained investment

Rajendra Singh Bagga, Damoh vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, Katni

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

ITA 187/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Rajendra Singh Bagga, 15 43, Tandon Vs. National Faceless Assessment Bagicha, College Road, Gayatri Nagar, Centre, Delhi [Jurisdiction Damoh, M.P. Officer-Acit Katni-Circle, Katni Pan:Adgpb8418G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, Fca Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 14.10.2024 Whereby Learned Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Orders Of The Learned Ao Under Section 147 Read With Section 144 Dated 30.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Passing Ex- Party Order Without Providing Adequate Opportunity As Only Three Dates For Hearing Were Fixed & That Too In The Peak Periods Of Filling Of Tax Audits, Income Tax Returns & Accordingly Assessee Was Busy In Filling His Audit Report /Itr & Had Seeked Adjournment Also In This Regard. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Cit (A) Erred In Confirming Addition Of 6 Lacs Under Section 68, When Ao Himself Admitting In The Assessment Order That The Difference Of 5% 'Was Applicable As Allowable Difference Between Circle Rate & Actual Rate Of Purchase Of Property. Hence Forth The Addition Of Rs 6 Lacs Should Have Been Deleted By Ao.

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68Section 69

observed that the assessee had purchased an immovable property below stamp duty value and therefore in his opinion, attracted the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) to the extent of Rs. 5,99,420/-. He issued a notice under section 148 and subsequent notices including a show cause notice

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Kanpur vs. Hari Shanker Gupta, Kanpur

The Appeal of the Department stands dismissed

ITA 648/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 The Dcit V. Hari Shanker Gupta Circle – 1(1) 533/2/1, Guba Garden Kanpur Kalyanpur, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aefpg4405G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) Respondent By: Shri Govind Krishna, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 03 06 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Govind Krishna, C.A
Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) was of Rs.1,79,68,225/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’). He further submitted that the NFAC, vide impugned order, allowed the appeal

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata vs. Kaushalya Nirman Private Limited, Kolkata

Appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1068/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: The Addl. Cit, Central Range-3, Kolkata For Perusal & Onwards Transmission To The Ld. Pr. Cit, Central-2. Kolkata. Subsequently, On 07.05.2024 The Ld. Pr. Cit Accorded Approval For Filing Appeal Before The Hon'Ble Itat, Kolkata. After Receiving The Approval, The Following Documents Have Been Prepared (Three Copies Each) For Filing The Appeal Before The Hon'Ble Itat, Kolkata. 1) Form No. 36

Section 250Section 56(2)(vib)

facts and in law by deleting the addition of Rs. 4,22,38,464/ on account of receipt of share premium under section 56(2)(vib) of the Act on the basis of fresh documents submitted by the assessee. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts

Antony Sunil, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(7), Chennai

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

ITA 815/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.815/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Antony Sunil, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 59, 11Th Trust Cross Street, Non Corporate Ward 1(7), Mandavelipakkam, Chennai 600 028. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Bxbps7987P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Anandd Babunath, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 415 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

For Appellant: Shri Anandd Babunath, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 50CSection 55ASection 56(2)Section 69

value and purchase consideration of ₹.11,00,000/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer brought to tax the said difference of ₹.11,00,000/- under section 56(2)[(vii)(b)(ii)] of the Act and completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act dated 20.12.2019. On appeal

Sangeeta Ratilal Panchal, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 2882/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosainsangeeta Ratilal Panchal Vs Ito, Ward-42(1)(5), Room No.945, Room No.2115, Plot No.335 Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai- Tamil Sangam Chawl, Jawahar 400 051 Nagar, Road No.19, Goregaon West, Mumbai-Alapp5767E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, (SR. DR)
Section 156Section 234Section 234BSection 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(21)(vii)

Learned AO and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)] has erred in law and on facts in invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of the transaction for purchase of immovable property, the agreement for which was entered into ... Financial Year 2013-14 through the allotment letter. 3. As per proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b), where the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable property and the date of registration are not the same, the stamp duty value

Vivira Investment and Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -4, Thane

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 5448/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

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

accepting the returned loss of INR 43,99,76,081/-, by making an addition of INR 3,36,27,20,872/- under section 56(2)(x). 2. The learned AO and CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had correctly reported their income, and no additions, disallowances, or adjustments ... were necessary to the returned income. 3. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act, when read with Rules 11U/11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ('Rules') would be applicable. 4. Whether, in the facts and circumstances

Hifzur Rehman Ansari, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 163/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeehifzur Rehman Ansari Vs Ito Ward-20(1)(5), Mumbai 1103, Zam Zam Tower Piramal Chambers, Dr Ss Rao Marg, Belvedere Road, Mazgaon, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 010 Pan: Aaapa7928F Applicant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

2. The assesse has taken the following grounds of appeal: - “1. Addition of Rs 34,70,000 against purchase of Mithaiwala Building under Section 56(2)(vii)(b): a. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred ... confirming the addition of Rs. 34,70,000. b. The pre-amended provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) (b) of the Income Tax Act, covers only situation where an individual or HUF receives from any person any immovable property without any consideration. The aforesaid provisions was however substituted by Finance

Surender Kumar, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward 4 (1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 351/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

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

DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Bits N Bytes Soft P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 332/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri M. Balaganeshdcit, Vs. M/S. Bits N Bytes Pvt. Ltd, Circle-4(2), 6020, Sector B/8, Vasant New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadcb1497L

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay Bhatnagar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

resident investors, before the Learned AO. The assessee duly gave its explanation before the Learned AO regarding the non-applicability of provisions of section 56(2)(viib) and section 68 of the Act in respect of amounts received from aforesaid two non-resident investors. It was duly brought

Danish Sheikh, Usa vs. Income Tax Officer Intl Tax Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1034/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 1034/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Danish Sheikh V/S. Ito International Tax, 18, Old Planters Road, बिाम Ward 4(2)(1) Beverly, Usa-999999 Kautilya Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Fjxps3005Q Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Pradip Kapasi राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 43CSection 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(vil)

order u/s 148A (d) and notice u/s 148 were totally ignored (Pg 29 of paper book). GROUND NO. 2 & 5: INAPPLICABILITY OF SECTION 56(2)(vii)(b) LAND AND/OR BUILDING NOT ACQUIRED-PREMISES UNDER CONSTRUCTION P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2016-17 Danish Sheikh Deeming fiction of the provision ... unaccounted funds employed. GROUND NO 6: BENEFIT OF PROVISO TO S.56(2) (VII)(B) DENIED WRONGFULLY The Provisos 1st and 2nd of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) provides that no addition should be made on account of the differencing Agreement Value and the Stamp Duty Value in cases where there

Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2) Jaipur, Ncrb, Jaipur vs. Sh. Pankaj Meena, Jaipur

In the result, the Cross objection of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 769/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 68

case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by holding that addition under section 56(2) of the Income-tax Act is not applicable in assessee's case as the property was purchased/payment was made prior to 01.04.2013 in spite ... made payment on behalf of the partner or it can gift the advance payment made by it to the seller as per section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. Ld. AO also noted that the assessee submitted that the firm has made payment and the transfer has been completed

Income Tax Officer, Kolkata vs. Netai Bhadra, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2386/KOL/2024[2020]Status: FixedITAT Kolkata26 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 2386/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Income Tax Officer,…………………………..……Appellant Ward-50(1), Kolkata, Uttarapan Building, Block-Ds-Ii & Iii, 2Nd Floor, Ultadanga, Kolkata-700054 -Vs.- Netai Bhadra,…………………………………......Respondent 3/2,New Pally, Noapara, Kolkata-700090, West Bengal [Pan:Ahdpb8164C] -And- C.O. No. 8/Kol/2025 (In Ita No. 2386/Kol/2024) Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Netai Bhadra,…………………………………..Cross Objector 3/2,New Pally, Noapara, Kolkata-700090, West Bengal [Pan:Ahdpb8164C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…Respondent Ward-50(1), Kolkata, Uttarapan Building, Block-Ds-Ii & Iii, 2Nd Floor, Ultadanga, Kolkata-700054

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 272A(1)(d)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

reasons that investment in immovable property/the purchase value of the property is less than the value determined by the stamp valuation authority under section 56(2) or any other relevant section. Accordingly notice under section 143(2) was issued on 29.06.2021 and duly served upon the assessee through ITBA Portal ... 2386/KOL/2024) Netai Bhadra required to be disclosed by the assessee under the head “income from other sources” in view of the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act and Since the assessee failed to make compliance of the statutory notices issued under section

Ramaswani Parameswaran Nallepilly, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -10(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4241/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Ramaswami Parameswaran Ito Ward 10(1)(1) Nallepilly Room No. 25 Building No. F-5, Flat No. B-1 Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Vashi Sector 9, Navi Mumbai M.K. Road 400 703. Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aacpn9909P Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Vasudev Ginde & Shri
Section 56(2)(x)

excess of stamp duty value of property over the consideration paid by appellant is treated as “Income from other sources” under section 56(2)(x)(b) of the I.T. Act. The value of two properties purchased by the appellant and his wife ... name is not mentioned in the allotment letter of 2015, the appellant is not eligible for the benefit of rates of 2015, under section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The Ld. AO opined that in the allotment letter issued in 2015 by the builder mentioned the name of appellant

Neelam Janardhan Rachalwar, Chimur vs. ITO Ward-2, Chandrapur

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 276/NAG/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Jun 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryneelam Janardhan Ito, Ward-2, Chandrapur Rachalwar, Sai Mandir Road, Tilak Ward, Chimur, Vs. Chandrapur, Maharashtra Pan: Adqpr 7539 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shikha Loya, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

However, the market value of the said immovable property was shown at Rs. 1,06,13,000/-, hence, in this case, provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) has been attracted and therefore the Ld. AO in order to verify the said transaction, vide show cause notice dated 24/12/2019, show

DCIT, Circle - 19(1), New Delhi vs. Rapid Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3522/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandrathe Dy. C.I.T Vs. Rapid Engineering Co. Pvt Ltd Circle – 19(1) 111-112, Dsidc Sheds Delhi Okhla Phase – 1, New Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 50(1)Section 50C(1)Section 56(2)(x)

case the CIT(A) was right in holding that the assessee amendment made by the Finance Act 2020 to the provisions of section 56(2)(x) enhancing the tolerance range to 10% is retrospective in nature and accordingly in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 2,52,80,000/-“ 3. Briefly

ITO, Ward-1(1), Faridabad vs. Chaman, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2774/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Chaman, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), H. No. 437, Sector-9, Faridabad Faridabad Pan: Bfapd6698P (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.103/Del/2024 [Arising Out Of Ita No.2774/Del/2024] Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Chaman, H. No. 437, Sector-9, Ward-1(1), Faridabad, Haryana Faridabad Pan: Bfapd6698P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Gaurav, Adv. Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.06.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No. 2774/Del/2024 & Assessee’S Cross Objection C.O. No. 103/Del/2024 For Assessment Year 2017- 18, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The

Section 147Section 250(4)

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

Vijay Shankar Pandey, Kolkata vs. Ward 33(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 695/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No. 695/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Vijay Shankar Pandey,………………..………Appellant 4/7A, Commerce House, 2, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata-700013 [Pan:Afspp7040Q] -Vs.- Assessing Officer,……………….…..….…....Respondent Ward-33(2), Kolkata, 10 Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Ms. Sarita Chobey, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: June 24, 2025 O R D E R

Section 56(2)(vii)

Authority from the consideration amount shall not be chargeable to Income tax under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’ under the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on or before 19.11.2018. However, the assessee did not file any explanation in this regard till

Late Ashok Kumar Murarka Represented Through Wife and Legal Heir Rajbala Murarka, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ncw 4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 887/CHNY/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.887/Chny/2025 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Late Sri Ashok Kumar Muraka, The Income Tax Officer, Represented By Wife & Legal Heir Vs. Non Corporate Ward-4(1), Smt. Rajbala Muraka, Chennai. No.22, Kolandai Street, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003. [Pan: Aaqpa 7031D]

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, C.A (Virtual)
Section 147Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

whereby sale consideration was fixed, therefore the A.O was required to check value as on 20.10.2011 while invoking the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The Ld. AR has relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R. :- 3 -: Hemalatha ... therefore, the market value as on the date of registration of property on 17.07.2015 is to be considered for the purpose of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 5. We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. The assessee entered into an agreement

Anant Changu Mokal, Dhatav, Kolad Roha vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 2341/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2341/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Anant Changu Mokal, V National Faceless Dhatav Midc Colony, Kokad S Assessment Centre. Roha, Roha Av S.O., Raigarh – 402116. Pan: Ahnpm1926F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ca Naina Chaurasia – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 20.09.2024For Assessment Year2019-20. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Ctt(A) Nfac Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming Addition Of Rs.1,38,86,973/- As Interest Income Received On Account Of Compulsory Land Acquisition U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, Thus

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 145ASection 194ASection 250oSection 28Section 34Section 56(2)(viii)

from the Municipal Limits. However, Assessing Officer held that the interest on enhanced compensation, which was Rs.2,73,73,947/- was taxable under section 56(2)(viii) r.w.s. 145B of the Act. therefore, Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.1,36,86,973/-, allowing the deduction under section