“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)

Beena Shah, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward(28)-1, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1109/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2012-13 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ms. Beena Shah, K-15/B, Saket, Ward-28(1), New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aqkps8537N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Beena Shah, In Person Department By Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year

Income Tax Officer, Panipat vs. Dinesh Kaushik, Panipat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5753/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Sh. Dinesh Kaushik, Income Tax Officer, Panipat Vpo Baljattan, Panipat, Haryana Pan: Awjpk9483E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145BSection 263Section 28Section 45(5)

addition made by the AO within the meaning of provisions of sec. 145B read with section 45(5) and amended provisions of sections 56(2)(viii), 57(iv) of the Act. 2. The appellant craves to add, amend or modify the grounds of appeal subsequently, before the appeal is disposed ... facts in reversing the assessment findings assessing the assessee’s section 28 interest on enhanced compensation, as taxable under section 56(2)(viii) read with section 57(iv) read with section 145B of the Act despite the fact that the issue is covered in the department’s favour in Mahender

Ram Raj Choudhary, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Jaipur

ITA 48/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 56(2)(vii)

went on to add the difference between the DLC and the actual consideration received by the aseessee. The AO mechanically applied provisions of section 56(2) to difference between stamp duty value and actual sale consideration paid by assessee and made additions, without making any efforts to find out actual ... even not bothered to refer the same to the Department Valuation Officer. 3.12 It would be pertinent to reproduce the proviso to Section 56(2)(vii) which reads as under - Provided that where the stamp duty value of immovable property as referred to in sub-clause (b) is disputed

Deepakkumar Chandulal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 561/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year : 2017-18 Deepakkumar Chandulal Shah Ito, Ward-4(1)(1) 1, Maniratna Bungalows Vs Vejalpur B/H, Abhishree-1, Party Plot Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 380 058 Pan : Aclps 2478 P (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Rupesh R. Shah, Ar : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/06/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/06/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

deserves to be deleted.” 3. The sole issue involved in this appeal is relating to the addition of Rs.16,12,245/- made under section 56(2)(x) of the Act, on account of difference in sale value of the property as per the registered deed as compared to the circulate ... deed was less than the stamp duty value in respect of the property purchased by the assessee. He, therefore, invoked the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act and made the impugned addition. The ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition so made by the AO. 4. Before

Rekha Shah, Mumbai vs. AO, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 2311/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeerekha Shah Vs National Faceless Appeal Centre D-614, Veena Santoor, Sector- (Nfac) / Ito-Ward-34(3)(2), 8, Opp. Kvsc, Sai Baba Nagar Mumbai Extension Road, Borivali (W), Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Banda, Mumbai-400 092 Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Abgps4732G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri (SR DR)

Section 144Section 147Section 250

Ld.AR, therefore, stated that the investment in the property is properly explained by the assessee. 6. With regard to the addition made under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, the Ld.AR submitted that the same cannot be done in the case of the assessee for the following reasons ... Provisions of section 56(2)(viib) Of Income Tax Act states that - “[(vii) where an individual or a Hindu undivided family receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons on or after the 1st day of October, 2009,- (a) any sum of money, without consideration, the aggregate value

Saurabh Sharvan Gupta, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 52(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2345/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 2345/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Saurabh Sharvan Gupta, Vs Acit, 20, Second Floor, Hari Sadan, Circle-52(1), Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aedpg2454H Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.06.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1071511745(1) Dated 24.12.2024, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR

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

accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 3. Learned departmental representative Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav vehemently argues that both the lower authorities herein have rightly made section 56(2)(vii)(b) addition amounting to Rs.18,82,834/- in the assessee’s hands which represents the difference between the actual purchase price of Rs.64

Hiren Rameshbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 681/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding the impugned addition on account of section 56(2)(vii) (b) amounting Rs. 90,00,000/-, I.T.A No. 681/Ahd/2024 Hiren Rameshbhai Patel, A.Y. 2016-17 received towards relinquishment in title over land offered

Priyanka Sudhir Palshetkar, Lower Parel, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5873/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Mr. P D Chougule, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

alleged has been transferred/sold by the “relative” of the Assessee, with whom transactions carried out, are protected or immuned from the rigors of section 56(2)(x) of the Act and therefore the provision of section 56(2)(x) of the Act under which addition has been made

Shri Gurudev Chandrashekhar Karanth, Pune vs. Income Tax Department CIT(Drp-3), Mumbai

In the result, Grounds Number 1 and 2 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 147/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.147/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Gurudev Chandrashekhar V Income Tax Department Karanth, S. Cit(Drp-3), Mumbai-1. 21 Cozy Retreat, Sindh Colony, Aundh, Pune – 411007. Maharashtra. Pan: Cgnpk6203J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri B.C.Malakar – Advocate Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Under Section 147 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 23.12.2024 For The A.Y.2018-19, Emanating From The Order Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S.144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 20.12.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)(x)Section 6

assessee as per the Registered Agreement. The difference of Rs.7,75,500/- is 4 % only of the Value Decided by DVO. 5. Section 56(2)(x) was amended by Finance Act, 2018, the amended section is reproduced here as under : “56(2)(x) where any person receives, in any previous ... duty value over the purchase consideration is less than 10% of the consideration, we are of the considered view that the provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act are not applicable to the present case. Since on this short ground only the assessee is entitled to relief

Jile Singh, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2223/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 2223/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Jile Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. 68, Sotai, Near Mahipal Ward-51(3), Nambardar, Ballabgarh, Faridabad, Faridabad, Haryana-121002 Haryana-121004 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Fzsps8684G Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.06.2025 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR

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 ... 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

Sangeetha Duraisamy, Salem vs. ITO, International Taxation Ward, Coimbatore

ITA 525/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.525/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20 Sangeetha Duraisamy, The Income Tax Officer, No.2/369, Manjulam Pallam, International Taxation Ward, Vellalapatti, Coimbatore. Salem, Tamil Nadu-636 012 [Pan: Etspd8813H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri P.M.Kathir, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 147Section 56Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

assessee through its grounds of appeal is regarding the addition of Rs.5,56,500/-, made by the Ld.AO within the meanings of section 56(2)(x)(b) r.w.s 50C of the Act on account of differential amount between the stamp duty valuation of the property of Rs.25,56

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Chennai vs. M. Mahadevan, Chennai

ITA 1826/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1824/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1825/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1826/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. M.Mahadevan, No.24, Park Avenue Street, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-600 030. [Pan: Aajpm5888R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri G.Gireesh, C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.C.Vatchala, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : The Below Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Appellant Revenue For Ay-2013-14, Ay-2014-15 & 2019-20 Contesting The Order Of Ld. First Appellate Authority Indicated Column-E, Herein Below:- S. No. A Appeal Nos. B Ays C Appellant D Cit(A) Order Details E Respondent F 1

For Respondent: Ms.C.Vatchala, CIT

buyer, the same needs to be considered for taxation in the hands of the recipient Mrs. Badrunissa. As per provisions of Section 56(2)(x) any person receiving any immoveable property below guideline value is to be taxed in the hand of the recipient under the head Income from Other

Kishor Ramchand Peswani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Int Tax) Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1041/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 1041/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) Kishor Ramchand Peswani V/S. Ito (Int. Tax) Ward B/44 Shiv Society, 2Nd बिाम 3(3)(1), Mumbai Floor, Kopri Colony, Thane 6Th Floor, Income Tax (E), Maharashtra-400603 Office, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Ayapp5403G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Vikas B. Waghmare राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Krishna Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vikas B. WaghmareFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

Section 144C(1)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the DRP was correct in issuing directions by completely ignoring the proviso of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to payments made by assessee for acquiring the property during F.Y. 2010-11 2. Whether ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the DRP was correct in issuing directions by completely ignoring the proviso of section 56(2)(vii) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to the allotment letter issued by builder and duly acknowledged by petitioner and also supported

Narayanbhai Manjibhai Bodriya, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 41(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4699/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Vaidyalingan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 50CSection 56Section 69

recorded in the registered agreement and Rs. 1,47,35,000/- being the market value fixed by the stamp duty office, by applying section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii). 4. Before the ld. CIT(A), assessee reiterated the submissions made before the ld. Assessing Officer. After considering the same, additions ... stated sale consideration in the registered deed, the said actual sale consideration is to be accepted as the fair value and provisions to section 56(2)(vii) cannot be invoked. Accordingly, in the given set of facts and following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench as stated above

ACIT Circle-28(1), New Delhi vs. Ajay Singh, New Delhi

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

ITA 912/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.912/िद"ी/2020(िन.व. 2015-16) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 28(1), R. No. 1001, 10Th Floor, E-2, Block, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Civic Centre, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant J L Nehru Marg, New Delhi 110002 बनाम Vs. Ajay Singh, B-1, Kalindi Colony, New Delhi 110065 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Abjps-9222-J Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Javed Akhtar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 30.05.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 06.12.2019, For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Revenue In Appeal Has Assailed The Order Of Cit(A) By Raising Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT(DR)

Section 147Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viii)

addition of Rs. 7,98,97,75,682/- made by the AO to the income of the assessee on account of provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the IT Act ignoring the fact that the assessee has acquired shares for a consideration which is less than aggregate fair ... addition of Rs. 7,98,97,75,682/- made by the AO to the income of the assessee on account of provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the IT Act ignoring the fact that shares of Spice jet purchased by assessee are quoted and there is no other