← 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)

Haneda Trading and Construction Sdn Bhn, West Malaysia vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2073/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1072 & 2073/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 Haneda Trading & The Deputy Commissioner Construction Sdn Bhd, Vs. Of Income Tax, Suite 10-01 Subang Square, Circle 1(2), Corporate Tower, Chennai. 47500, Jalan Ss, 15/4G, Subang Jaya Selangor, West Malaysia Pan: Aagch 2363G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 144(1)(a)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

According to the AO, the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the shares was Rs.135.71. The AO was of the view that section 56(2)(vii) of the Act has application and accordingly, issued notice u/s.148 of the Act. During the course of re-assessment proceedings, the assessee stated that ... price of equity shares at (-) Rs. 82.36/- per share in reckoning the Fair Market Value of Rs. 135.71/- per share in terms of Section 56(2) (viia) of the Act without assigning proper reasons and justification. 10. The CIT (Appeals) - 16, Chennai failed to appreciate that the provisions of Section

Haneda Trading and Construction Sdn Bhd, West Malaysia vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1072/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1072 & 2073/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 Haneda Trading & The Deputy Commissioner Construction Sdn Bhd, Vs. Of Income Tax, Suite 10-01 Subang Square, Circle 1(2), Corporate Tower, Chennai. 47500, Jalan Ss, 15/4G, Subang Jaya Selangor, West Malaysia Pan: Aagch 2363G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 144(1)(a)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

According to the AO, the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the shares was Rs.135.71. The AO was of the view that section 56(2)(vii) of the Act has application and accordingly, issued notice u/s.148 of the Act. During the course of re-assessment proceedings, the assessee stated that ... price of equity shares at (-) Rs. 82.36/- per share in reckoning the Fair Market Value of Rs. 135.71/- per share in terms of Section 56(2) (viia) of the Act without assigning proper reasons and justification. 10. The CIT (Appeals) - 16, Chennai failed to appreciate that the provisions of Section

Hari Singh, Palwal vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4082/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

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

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 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

Rising Star Investment, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 26(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 186/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Ashwin Chhag, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Mahadevan A.M. Krishanan, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 56(2)(via)Section 56(2)(viia)

assessment, assessee had made a categorical request for making a reference to the Department Valuation Officer (DVO) in terms of provisions contained in section 56(2)(viia). Ld. Assessing Officer has taken cognizance of the submissions made by the assessee for the request for reference to DVO. In this respect ... Rising Star Investment AY 2017-18 is admittedly less than 10% in the present case, we find that provisions of section 56(2)(viia) will have no application in the matter. Accordingly, the addition so as made by the ld. Assessing Officer stands deleted considering the merits of the case

Vyankatesh Narayan Kulkarni, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Range 3(4), Thane

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

ITA 1851/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Mitali Parekh, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. D/R
Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68Section 69A

whereas the additions involved in AY 2015-16 were under section 68 of Rs. 10,85,690 on account of agricultural income and section 56(2)(vii) of Rs. 13,33,16,700 which are entirely different in nature and scope. I.T.A. No. 1851/Mum/2025 2 3. On the facts

Dhruv Sanjay Gupta, Mumbai vs. JCIT, Range 27(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5749/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.R Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

According to the assessee, these gifts were received on the occasion of his marriage and therefore, is exempted under the proviso to section 56(2)(vii). However, according to the ld. Assessing Officer, these gifts were received by the assessee after the occasion of the marriage, based on dates ... Officer has taken a microscopic view of the meaning “on the occasion of marriage” without going into the intent of the proviso to section 56(2)(vii), since the cheques were realised at a later date which were given by the respective donors and were received by the assessee

Gaurav Rajesh Desai, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward -3(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 675/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh / AkshayFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

source of funds for purchase of the property. The AO subsequently issued a show cause notice asking the assessee as why addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) cannot be invoked in assessee's case considering that the market value of the said property ... under dispute. The DVO determined the value of the property at Rs. 2,52,19,000/-. The AO accordingly made an addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act for an amount of Rs. 50,96,667/- being assessee's share of the difference between purchase consideration

Kanan Sanatan Satyapriy, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 24(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2478/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeekanan Sanatan Satyapriy Vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 24(2)(1), A Wing 1302, Metropolish Mumbai Building, Near D.N. Nagar Maharastra-400058 Metro Station, Mumbai-400 058 Pan: Bmxps8907E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Darshit J Naik, CA (virtually appeared)For Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi – Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 56(2)(x)Section 69B

time; therefore, we condone the delay of 221 days and adjudicate the matter as below. 3. In the assessment addition was made under section 56(2)(x) of the Act related to difference in stamp duty value and purchase value of the property shown by the assessee amount to Rs.1

Kanchan Lalwani, Vizianagaram vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Visakhapatnam

ITA 265/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.265/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2021-22) Kanchan Lalwani V. Pr.Cit -1 22-1-22, Phho Baugh Road Aayakar Bhavan, Daba Gardens Ambati Satram Junction Visakhapatnam – 530020 Khadarnagar, Vizianagaram – 535002 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Abepl4375Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(x)Section 68

making addition of Rs.65,00,.000/- under section 68 of the Act towards unexplained cash credit and Rs.45,40,750/- towards disallowance under section 56(2)(x) of the Act. 3. Subsequently, by exercising the power conferred under section 263 of the Act, Ld.Pr.CIT came to the conclusion that ... already examined all the details and addition was made to the tune of Rs. Rs.65,00,.000/-. In so far as section 56(2)(x) is concerned, Ld. AO has examined all the details and addition was already made Rs.45,40,750/- and detailed assessment order was passed. Once

Haresh Kumar Lalwani, Vizianagaram vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Vishakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 264/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.264/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2021-22) Haresh Kumar Lalwani V. Pr.Cit -1 22-1-22, Ambati Satram Junction Aayakar Bhavan, Daba Gardens Vizianagaram – 535002 Visakhapatnam – 530020 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaqpt9248P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(x)Section 69A

difference between market value and the purchase agreements. Hence, the differential amount of Rs. 45,40,750/- comes under the ambit of Section 56(2)(x) of the IT Act. 2. It is noticed from the assessment order that the assessing officer considered an amount ... requested for dropping of the proceedings. 5. However, Ld.Pr.CIT came to the conclusion that the Ld. AO has not properly examined section 56(2)(x) of the Act and also the sources of purchase of the immovable property to the tune of Rs. 28,60,000/- and directed

Sathyanaryanan Saigeetha, Trichy vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Trichy

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

ITA 282/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri A.S. Ramakrishnan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

changed the stand without adequate proof that gift was meant to be her husband just to avoid the rigour of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. As the husband’s aunt is not relative as per proviso to section 56(2)(vii) of the Act, the AO has correctly

Johar Hasan Zojwalla, Kalyan vs. Pr. Comm. of Income Tax, Thane-1, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3121/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. D/R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)Section 80I

relying upon the provisions of sec. 263 of the I. Tax Act, 1961, directing the Id AO to examine the applicability of section 56(2)(x)(b)(B)/section 50C to the transaction of purchase of flat no.3602 at Planet Godrej, Mahalaxmi (E), Mumbai vide agreement dt.03.08.2021, when undisputedly ... whereas the Market Value of the property determined by the Stamp Valuation Authority is Rs.5,91,49,665/-. As per Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Act, if the stamp duty value exceeds the consideration amount by more than 10% of the consideration, the differential amount is chargeable

Goodearth Infrastructure Development Limited, Patiala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1117/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1117/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vs. The Dcit, Goodearth Infrastructure बनाम Central Circe 1(1), Development Limited, Chandigarh 6458/1, Lahori Gate, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaica9869Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.06.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 56(2)(viib)

account of alleged share premium in excess of the fair market value by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 3. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the orders passed by Ld. AO and then by Worthy CIT(A) deserve

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad vs. Ashish Jugalkishor Bhala, Jalna

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1238/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Dcit, Aurangabad Ashish Jugalkishor Bhala Mamta Hospital, Shivaji Putla Road, Vs. Bharat Nagar, Jalna – 431203 Maharashtra Pan: Ahmpb3683K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anand Partani Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 01-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-06-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Anand PartaniFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 56(2)(x)

made u/s 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the valuation for the purpose of section 56(2)(x) is the Fair Market Value [FMV] which is derived as prescribed method of valuation in accordance with the Rule 11U & 11UA of Income ... Immovable property and 2 margin of safety as they are not applicable for determining the FMV of unquoted shares for the purpose of section 56(2)(x) in accordance with the Rule 11U & 11UA of Income Tax Rules, 1962. 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case

Smt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(2), Thane

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4753/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon‟Ble Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosainsmt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani Vs. Ito, Ward 3(2) 1 A/34, Drugs Society, Opp. Room No. 4, 6Th Floor, Jk Gram, Samatha Nagar B-Wagle Estate, Midc, Pokhran Road No. 1 Thane (W) Thane (W). Pan/Gir No. Aaupj0472D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nishit Gandhi Revenue By Shri Chetan M. Kacha, (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 22.08.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. All The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Interrelated & Interconnected & Relates To Challenging The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) In Upholding The Order Of Ao In Reopening The 2 Smt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani, Mumbai

Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

donor to the appellant on 09/04/2009 itself, as per the letters of the donors as referred above. Now, the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the I. T. Act, 1961 were introduced for the first time w.e.f ... shares were already gifted in the name of the appellant by the donors prior to that. Thus, the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the I. T. Act, 1961 is not applicable to the Appellant so far, the above-mentioned gifts are concerned. It is only because

Mr. Shantilal Govind Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO 27(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1608/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 250Section 254(1)Section 56(2)

grounds of appeal: “ 1. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in making the addition of Rs. 87,84,092/- and made addition under section 56(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 upheld by Commissioner of Income Tax. 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in passing order hurriedly without ... Despite recording all such facts, the assessing officer disregarded the submission of assessee and made addition of Rs. 87.84 lacs under section 56(2) of Income Tax Act. The copy of reply file before assessing officer with acknowledgement of ITBA portal is placed on record. The assessee also furnished

Arun Dwivedi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-9(2), New Delhi

ITA 6293/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH

Triveni Knits Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. ITO Ward 1 (3), Ludhiana

ITA 246/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Mehru, CA and Shri Dev Mehru, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 56(2)(vib)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 69

erred in calculating the fair market value of unquoted equity shares of the appellant company. Valuation of shares for the purpose of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been incorrectly calculated by the Ld. AO and the addition has been made to the total income ... consideration of the capital and loan balances standing in their names in the erstwhile firm. The Ld. AO, invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, made an addition of Rs.77,25,000/- on the grounds that the share premium received exceeded the fair

Ankita Bhartia, Kanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 386/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

parents and relatives on the occasion of her marriage therefore, the jewellery received by the assessee clearly falls within the exemption provided under section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. He also submitted that as per CBDT Circular No. 347-E I.T.A. No.386/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2013-14 3 dated 20/05/1978

Knowlarity Communications India Private Limited, Gurgaon, Haryana vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(2), Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

ITA 1420/DEL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Knowlarity Communications India Vs Acit, Private Ltd., Circle 14(2), Awfis, 7Th Floor, Delhi. Ambience Mall, Nh-8, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 002. Pan : Aafck1875R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Shri Shivam Yadav, Shri Sumit Lalchandani & Ms Ananya Kapoor, Advocates Revenue By : Ms Rajinder Kaur, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Salil KapoorFor Respondent: Ms Rajinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 250Section 37Section 68

provided by the assessee which shows that the assessee was questioned specifically with regard to examining the receipt for the purpose of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act and the assessee was directed to provide complete valuation report of the shares, source of such funds along with confirmations, source ... Sequoia and invested by holding company was also provided to AO vide submissions dated 10.12.2019. It was also specifically stated that provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act are not applicable as the consideration is received from a non-resident. 7 10. Thus, very apparently, at the first