← 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)

Pramod Salvi, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 8667/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailpramod Salvi 153, Poornanand Chs, Cr Dungarshi Road, Walkeshwar, Mumbai - 400006. ............... Appellant Pan: Aajps3189B V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, ……………… Respondent Mumbai- 400020

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay Phadke, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. The solitary grievance of the assessee is against the addition made under section 56(2)(x) of the Act in respect of two residential flats purchased by the assessee. 2 3. The brief facts of the case are that

Bajaj International Realty Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-1(2), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 5321/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kirit Kamdar
Section 4Section 43C

allotment letters issued to an assessee should be considered as assessee should be considered as agreement to sell for the purpose of section 56(2)(x). The section agreement to sell for the purpose of section 56(2)(x). The section agreement to sell for the purpose of section 56 ... 2)(x). The section 56(2)(x), which is pari materia pari materia to section 43CA of the Act, hence ratio to section 43CA of the Act, hence ratio of said decision applied to the facts of assessee. of said decision applied to the facts of assessee. Following the ratio

Bajaj International Realty Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, 1(2)1, Mumbai

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 5319/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kirit Kamdar
Section 4Section 43C

allotment letters issued to an assessee should be considered as assessee should be considered as agreement to sell for the purpose of section 56(2)(x). The section agreement to sell for the purpose of section 56(2)(x). The section agreement to sell for the purpose of section 56 ... 2)(x). The section 56(2)(x), which is pari materia pari materia to section 43CA of the Act, hence ratio to section 43CA of the Act, hence ratio of said decision applied to the facts of assessee. of said decision applied to the facts of assessee. Following the ratio

Mansukhlal Mohanlal Mehta HUF, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5049/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokars.A. No. 173/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Mansukhlal Mohanlal Ito Ward-41(2)(3), Mehta Huf Kautilya Bhavan, B-102, Krishakunj, S. N. Vs. Bandra Kurla Road, Mulund West, Complex, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 080 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaghm5909Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Kalpana Gandhi, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 154Section 250Section 270Section 270ASection 56(2)(x)

with section 144B vide order dated 26.04.2021. In the said assessment, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 66,70,000/- under section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) on account of difference between the stamp duty value of property and consideration shown by the assessee. Consequent thereto, penalty proceedings ... course of hearing before us the learned Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the quantum addition of Rs. 66,70,000/- made under section 56(2)(x) of the Act in the assessment order dated 26.04.2021 is still pending adjudication before the learned CIT(A)/NFAC in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10290409 filed

M/S Stance Consumer Electronics Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-32, Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 in ITA No

ITA 2792/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.2791 & 2792/Del/2025 (Assessment Yearss 2016-17 & 2017-18)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

case the AO has doubts about the value of the shares sold by the assessee, the addition should have been made in section 56(2) however, the AO has made the addition by treating the said sale consideration as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act which stood confirmed ... Stance Consumer Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT of the shares sold was worked out at Rs.38.21 per share and as per Explanation to section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, fair market value of the shares is defined which reads as under:- 56 (1)…………….. (2) (viib) …… (Explanation For the purposes

M/S Stance Consumer Electronics Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-32, Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 in ITA No

ITA 2791/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.2791 & 2792/Del/2025 (Assessment Yearss 2016-17 & 2017-18)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

case the AO has doubts about the value of the shares sold by the assessee, the addition should have been made in section 56(2) however, the AO has made the addition by treating the said sale consideration as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act which stood confirmed ... Stance Consumer Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT of the shares sold was worked out at Rs.38.21 per share and as per Explanation to section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, fair market value of the shares is defined which reads as under:- 56 (1)…………….. (2) (viib) …… (Explanation For the purposes

Hollis Vitrified Private Limited, Morbi, Gujarat, India vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot, Gujarat, India

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

ITA 363/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 363/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Hollis Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No. 756/P1/P1/P1, Opp. Tax-1, Rajkot Antique Granito, Ghuntu,-Lakhdhirpur Road, Morbi (Gujarat)-363642 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacch5628Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS mainly on the reason that "large share premium received during the year (verify applicability of section 56(2)(viib) or any other relevant section). Therefore, it was incumbent upon the assessing officer to verify all the aspects of the share capital minutely

Happy Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., (Merged With Rishi Securities & Finance Private Limited), Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2578/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2577 & 2578/Kol/2025 (Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2021-22) Happy Suppliers Pvt. Ltd (Merged With Rishi Securities & Finance Private Limited)……….……….……Appellant Octavius Centre, 1St Floor, 15B, Hemant Basu Sarani, Kol-1. [Pan: Aabch9212M] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata….……………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sandip Sarkar, Jcit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 28, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 12, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Dated 08.09.25 & 28.08.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption)-21, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(E)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since Both The Appeals Relate To The Assessee & Facts Are Similar, Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & We Are Going To Dispose Of These Appeals By Passing A Consolidated Order. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Relevant A.Y Declaring Nil Income. A Search & Seizure

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69Section 69A

issued and the assessee filed replies. Thereafter, a SCN was issued to the assessee to explain the following (i) why the provision of section 56(2)(x) of the Act should not be invoked on account of difference in Stamp Duty Value and Purchase Price amounting to Rs.1 ... should not be added to the total income. The assessee vides its submission dated 12/03/2025 replied to issue no. (1) that provision of section 56(2) (x) of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2017 and since all the immovable properties were purchased before such date

Happy Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., (Merged With Rishi Securities & Finance Private Limited), Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2577/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2577 & 2578/Kol/2025 (Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2021-22) Happy Suppliers Pvt. Ltd (Merged With Rishi Securities & Finance Private Limited)……….……….……Appellant Octavius Centre, 1St Floor, 15B, Hemant Basu Sarani, Kol-1. [Pan: Aabch9212M] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata….……………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sandip Sarkar, Jcit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 28, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 12, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Dated 08.09.25 & 28.08.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption)-21, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(E)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since Both The Appeals Relate To The Assessee & Facts Are Similar, Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & We Are Going To Dispose Of These Appeals By Passing A Consolidated Order. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Relevant A.Y Declaring Nil Income. A Search & Seizure

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69Section 69A

issued and the assessee filed replies. Thereafter, a SCN was issued to the assessee to explain the following (i) why the provision of section 56(2)(x) of the Act should not be invoked on account of difference in Stamp Duty Value and Purchase Price amounting to Rs.1 ... should not be added to the total income. The assessee vides its submission dated 12/03/2025 replied to issue no. (1) that provision of section 56(2) (x) of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2017 and since all the immovable properties were purchased before such date

Jawaharlal Devidas Chhabria, Champa Gully, Cross Lane, Kalbadevi vs. ITO Ward 23(1)(6), Piramal Chambers, Mumbai

ITA 7553/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 44ASection 50CSection 50C(2)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

appeal:- “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.1,92,000 under section 56(2) (x) without appreciating that the difference between the agreement value and the DVO-determined value represents only an estimated variation arising from a technical ... accruing to the appellant. Further, the Legislature has subsequently recognised permissible valuation variations by introducing safe-harbour limits of 5% and 10% under section 56(2) (x) in later years, thereby acknowledging that minor differences between stated consideration and valuation do not warrant taxation. Relief Claimed: The appellant prays that

ITO, Delhi vs. Varun Manchanda, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2278/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Varun Arya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

ignoring the fact that gifts received from relatives (parents, siblings, spouses and other specified family members) as defined under section 56(2) of Income Tax Act are exempt 1 | P a g e ITA No. 2278/DEL/2025_ITO Vs Varun Manchanda from tax, but to claim such exemption, details ... regardless of the amount involved. Accordingly, he deleted the addition of Rs. 10,43,998/-. 4.2 Before us, Ld. DR pointed out that section 56(2) specifies the category of relatives from whom the gifts received are exempt from tax. However, the assessee had failed to give any details

Anil Tuteja, Fatehabad vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 780/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

exempt and did not bring the same to tax. 6. According to the Ld. Pr. CIT, in view of the provisions of section 56(2)(viii) read with section 145B(1) of the Act, interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation is chargeable to tax under the head “Income from ... deals with capital gains on transfer of agricultural land and does not govern taxability of interest which is separately brought to charge under section 56(2)(viii). 12. The contention of the assessee regarding jurisdiction of Delhi High Court on account of faceless assessment was also rejected

Karan Pratap Singh, Sirsa, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sirsa, Haryana

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 761/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

exempt and did not bring the same to tax. 6. According to the Ld. Pr. CIT, in view of the provisions of section 56(2)(viii) read with section 145B(1) of the Act, interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation is chargeable to tax under the head “Income from ... deals with capital gains on transfer of agricultural land and does not govern taxability of interest which is separately brought to charge under section 56(2)(viii). 12. The contention of the assessee regarding jurisdiction of Delhi High Court on account of faceless assessment was also rejected

Munish Kumar Legal Heir Late Sh Gurdeep Singh, Vill Manakpur, Yamunanagar vs. ITO, Ward 5, Yamunanagar

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 754/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

exempt and did not bring the same to tax. 6. According to the Ld. Pr. CIT, in view of the provisions of section 56(2)(viii) read with section 145B(1) of the Act, interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation is chargeable to tax under the head “Income from ... deals with capital gains on transfer of agricultural land and does not govern taxability of interest which is separately brought to charge under section 56(2)(viii). 12. The contention of the assessee regarding jurisdiction of Delhi High Court on account of faceless assessment was also rejected

Madhu Grewal, Chandigarh vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-1, Chandigarh

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 603/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

exempt and did not bring the same to tax. 6. According to the Ld. Pr. CIT, in view of the provisions of section 56(2)(viii) read with section 145B(1) of the Act, interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation is chargeable to tax under the head “Income from ... deals with capital gains on transfer of agricultural land and does not govern taxability of interest which is separately brought to charge under section 56(2)(viii). 12. The contention of the assessee regarding jurisdiction of Delhi High Court on account of faceless assessment was also rejected

Parveen Kumar, 229, Village Manakpur-II, Tehsil Jagadhri, Haryana vs. Prabhjot Kaur, PCIT Panchkula, Chandigarh

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 576/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

exempt and did not bring the same to tax. 6. According to the Ld. Pr. CIT, in view of the provisions of section 56(2)(viii) read with section 145B(1) of the Act, interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation is chargeable to tax under the head “Income from ... deals with capital gains on transfer of agricultural land and does not govern taxability of interest which is separately brought to charge under section 56(2)(viii). 12. The contention of the assessee regarding jurisdiction of Delhi High Court on account of faceless assessment was also rejected

Maninder Jeet Singh V.P.O. Udhamgarh, Jagadhri, Haryana vs. Prabhjot Kaur, PCIT, Panchkula

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 575/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

exempt and did not bring the same to tax. 6. According to the Ld. Pr. CIT, in view of the provisions of section 56(2)(viii) read with section 145B(1) of the Act, interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation is chargeable to tax under the head “Income from ... deals with capital gains on transfer of agricultural land and does not govern taxability of interest which is separately brought to charge under section 56(2)(viii). 12. The contention of the assessee regarding jurisdiction of Delhi High Court on account of faceless assessment was also rejected

Ram Niwas, Fatehabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Office, Sirsa Road, Industrial Area, Fatehabad

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 498/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

exempt and did not bring the same to tax. 6. According to the Ld. Pr. CIT, in view of the provisions of section 56(2)(viii) read with section 145B(1) of the Act, interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation is chargeable to tax under the head “Income from ... deals with capital gains on transfer of agricultural land and does not govern taxability of interest which is separately brought to charge under section 56(2)(viii). 12. The contention of the assessee regarding jurisdiction of Delhi High Court on account of faceless assessment was also rejected

Rakesh Kumar, Jagadhri vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 456/CHANDI/2024[2015-16 ]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

exempt and did not bring the same to tax. 6. According to the Ld. Pr. CIT, in view of the provisions of section 56(2)(viii) read with section 145B(1) of the Act, interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation is chargeable to tax under the head “Income from ... deals with capital gains on transfer of agricultural land and does not govern taxability of interest which is separately brought to charge under section 56(2)(viii). 12. The contention of the assessee regarding jurisdiction of Delhi High Court on account of faceless assessment was also rejected

Ashok Kumar Thakral, Jagadhri vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 455/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

exempt and did not bring the same to tax. 6. According to the Ld. Pr. CIT, in view of the provisions of section 56(2)(viii) read with section 145B(1) of the Act, interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation is chargeable to tax under the head “Income from ... deals with capital gains on transfer of agricultural land and does not govern taxability of interest which is separately brought to charge under section 56(2)(viii). 12. The contention of the assessee regarding jurisdiction of Delhi High Court on account of faceless assessment was also rejected