← 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)

Gagandeep Kaur Nagi, Sonari vs. Income Tax Officer, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 45/RAN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryassessment Year:2017-18 Gagandeep Kaur Nagi, Flat Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1). No. B, Block No. 5A, Jharkhand. Mahananda Apartment. Jharkhand. Pan/Gir No.Auupk7438C (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.R. Mittal,Ca Revenue By : Shri Khubchand T.Pandya, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri R.R. Mittal,CAFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T.Pandya, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 249Section 249(4)(b)Section 56Section 56(2)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI (SMC) BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year:2017

Vibhiti Bhateja, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-2, Rewari

ITA 4707/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 115BSection 147Section 56(2)Section 69

dispute between the parties that the assessee’s relationship with her in-laws indeed satisfies the statutory category of relatives under section 56(2) of the Act. The sole question which now remains is the assessee’s explanation on merits wherein the tribunal’s attention is invited to the lower

Vibhuti Bhateja, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-2, Rewari

ITA 4706/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 115BSection 147Section 56(2)Section 69

dispute between the parties that the assessee’s relationship with her in-laws indeed satisfies the statutory category of relatives under section 56(2) of the Act. The sole question which now remains is the assessee’s explanation on merits wherein the tribunal’s attention is invited to the lower

Atul Mardia (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 46(4), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

ITA 1420/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

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

Patel Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 22/JODH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

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

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

noted earlier there was no business activity during the year as per submission filed, assessee was asked to justify the premium as per section 56(2)(viib) of the Act and rule 11UA of I.T. Rules. Ld. AR submitted share valuation report which was not as per rule 11UA ... shares has been determined under various methods of valuation including discounted cash flow method. However as per explanation given under provision of section 56(2)(viib) of the I. T. Act, the fair market value of the shares shall be the value as may be determined in accordance with rule

Shri Kamaluddin Popatlal Surani, Vapi vs. PCIT, Valsad

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

ITA 666/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.666/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Kamaluddin Popatlal Surani, Vs. The Pcit, A/12, Golden Park, Kabrastan Road, Valsad Vapi - 396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajyps2442M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajesh Upadhyaya, Ar Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 02/01/2025

Section 144Section 148Section 253(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 56(2)(x)

entire value of SVA of Rs.48,11,939/- u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act. The appellant submitted that neither the provisions of section 56(2)(x) nor section 69 can be applied because the impugned property was booked with Rose Developers Private Limited on 09.11.2011 by paying Rs.1 ... supporting evidences. We find that the action of the PCIT is in accordance with clear statutory provisions of the Act. Clause (x) of Section 56(2) expands the scope of income from other sources w.e.f. AY.2017-18 and subsequent year to provide that receipt of the sum of money or property

Shastri Lal, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward -4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3918/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Sh. Rajat Chaudhary, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)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

Dilbag Singh, Rohtak vs. Income Tax Officer, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3909/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)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

Arnab Kumar Goswami, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 62(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1710/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1710/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arnab Kumar Goswami……….. ……..…..…………………....Appellant Flat – 1C, Subham Apartment, Narayantala East, Baguiati, Kolkata – 700059. [Pan: Ahbpg0395G] Vs. Ito, Ward-62(1), Kolkata…. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Dilip Sahu, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. Drs, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 01, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.06.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Act By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,52,310/- During The Relevant Assessment Year. The Assessee Purchased An Immovable Property At Rajarhat At Sale Consideration Of Rs.25,00,000/-. However, The Stamp Duty Value Of The Property As Per Deed Of Conveyance Dated 05.09.2016 Was Rs.35,36,655/-. The Difference Of Rs.10,36,655/- Was Splitted Between The Assessee & His Spouse Amounting To Rs.5,18,327/-. Accordingly, The Assessing Officer Invoked Section 56(2)(Vii) Of The Act & Added Rs.5,18,327/- To The Total Income Of The Assessee As ‘Income From Other Sources’ While Framing Assessment. The

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151(1)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

difference of Rs.10,36,655/- was splitted between the assessee and his spouse amounting to Rs.5,18,327/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer invoked section 56(2)(vii) of the Act and added Rs.5,18,327/- to the total income of the assessee as ‘income from other sources’ while framing assessment

Hbs View Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2246/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Seth, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. D/R
Section 24Section 56(2)(vii)

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

Valukko Infrastrusture Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 11(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1034/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2025AY 2011-2012

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

Smt. Vimla Tripathi, Kanpur vs. ITO Ward-1(2)(1), Kanpur

ITA 310/LKW/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Vimla Tripathi V. The Income Tax Officer 119/12 B-1, Darshanpurwa Ward 1(2)(1) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aevpt9734K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 31 12 2024 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.08.2023, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 01.01.2014, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,93,140/-. As Per Information Available With The Income Tax Department, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Noticed That The Assessee, Along With Shri Siddha Kumar Tripathi, Had Purchased An Agricultural Land Admeasuring 0.6200 Hectare On 01.08.2012 For A Consideration Of Rs.12,00,000/-. The Ao Further Noticed That The Market Value Of

For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

treated as deemed income of the assessee from other sources and added the same to the total income of the assessee under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. ITA No.310/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 10 3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the AO, the Assessee preferred ... Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in applying the Provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 applicable to Assessment Year 2013-14 ignoring the fact that appellant had paid consideration of Rs.6.00 lacs

Indrayani Seva Samiti Nyas, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(2), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 828/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 12ASection 250Section 56(2)

।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”एस एम सी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK

Ranvijay Haldhar Singh, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appealate Centre, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5430/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. Tejas Sodha, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)

tune of Rs.2,72,00,000/-. Also the stamp value of the said property is Rs.2,77,613,500/- therefore the provision of section 56(2) (x) of the act is attracted in this case.” 3.2. In the response to the said notice, assessee submitted detailed reply on 06/03/2023 alongwith ... that is, by a difference amount of Rs.5,13,500/- and hence his case squarely falls under the provisions of the above mentioned section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. 5 Mr. Ranvijay Haldhar Singh 7.5 The AO taxed the difference amount in the impugned assessment order

Abhinav Malik, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-31(1), Delhi

ITA 3525/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanabhinav Malik Income Tax Officer, D 114, Saket, Ward-31(1), Delhi-110 017 Vs. Delhi. Pan:Aiypm6590K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Divya Gujral, Ca Department By Shriyogesh Kumar Nayyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/12/2024

For Appellant: (i) That the transaction in hand i.e., the property transacted located at 18, Bl
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 56Section 56(2)(vii)

against the circle rate of this property mentioned in the sale deed at Rs.2,31,68,140/. The AO noted the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and stated that where the person Abhinav Malik vs. ITO purchase an immovable property for a sale consideration which ... received immovable property, the circle rate of which exceeds the sale consideration by a sum of Rs.1,11,68,140/-, therefore, provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) are clearly attracted. He required the assessee to explain through show cause notice, the assessee replied by letter dated 11/12/2018. The relevant

People Care Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Faridabad

ITA 6178/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S People Care Hospitals Pvt. Vs Ito, Ltd., Ward-2(1), Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Faridabad. Near Neelam Flyover, Sector-20B, Faridabad. Pan: Aagcp8745G Assessment Year: 2015-16 Potent Foods Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Ward-2(1), Near Neelam Flyover, Faridabad Sector-20B, Faridabad. Pan: Aagcp6222N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Saxena, Advocate; Shri Dishant Sethi, Advocate; & Ms Sumangla Saxena, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.12.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: Heard & Perused The Records. The Two Appeals Have Common Investors Whose Investments Have Been Doubted By The Ld, Tax Authorities Below. The Ld. Representatives Of Both The Sides Have Argued Citing Facts Of Ita

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Saxena, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

enhanced the income of the appellant by Rs. 70,87,500/- u/s 251(1) of the Act by invoking provisions of section 56(2) (viib) of the Act. 11. Hence, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising following grounds: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred ... facts in enhancing the income of appellant assessee by sum of Rs. 70,87,500/- u/s 251(1) of the Act by invoking section 56(2)(viib) of the Act wherein rejecting the valuation method taken by appellant assessee. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well

Vilas Kisan Patil, Uran vs. Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, Itd, Panvel

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2178/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2178/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vilas Kisan Patin, V The Assessing Officer, House No.82, Panje, S Assessment Unit, Itd, Uran,Tal.Panvel, Panvel. Dist-Raigad, Maharashtra – 400702. Pan: Ayipp1671N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 29.08.2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Hon. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Addition Of Rs.1,92,72,028/- Made By Ld. Ao By Relying Upon The Provisions Of Section 56(2)(Viii) R.W.S 57(Iv) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The I.T.Act, 1961, Not Appreciating That The Said Amount Was Interest Granted U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Thus Bore The Character Of Enhanced Compensation On Acquisition Of Agricultural Land Situated At Village Panje, Tal.Uran, Dist. Raigd, Maharashtra & Was Therefore Exempt From Tax & The Addition Is Required To Be Deleted. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Later, Amend And/Or Vary The Grounds Of The Appeal At Any Time Before The Decision Of The Appeal.” Submission Of Ld.Ar : 2. Ld.Ar For The Assessee Filed A Paper Book Containing 54 Pages. Ld.Ar Filed A Written Submission. Ld.Ar Submitted That Assessee Had Received Rs.3,85,44,057/- As Interest Under Section 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act. Ld.Ar Submitted That Said Interest Is Not Taxable As Held By The Hon’Ble Bombay High Court. Ld.Ar Filed Copy Of The Judgment. Ld.Ar Also Relied On The Following

Section 145Section 145ASection 148Section 23Section 23(1)(A)Section 250Section 28Section 4Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

erred in upholding addition of Rs.1,92,72,028/- made by ld. AO by relying upon the provisions of section 56(2)(viii) r.w.s 57(iv) r.w.s. 145A(b) of the I.T.Act, 1961, not appreciating that the said amount was interest granted u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition ... assessee for A.Y. 2017-18 was taxable to the extent of 50% of the total interest received in pursuance of the provisions of Section 56(2)(viii) read with section 57(iv) and Section 145A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the total addition is calculated as below

Pradip Manilal Kanakia, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Mum-C-(174)(1)), Mumbai

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

ITA 5499/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri.B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Kirti SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

duty and the agreement value / consideration.” 3. The brief fact of the case is that the assessment was completed with an addition under section 56(2)(x) amount to Rs.58,77,000/- with the total income of the assessee. The assessee had booked a flat with M/s Orbit Heights ... amount of Rs.58,77,500/- r/o Rs.58,77,000/- was added back to the total income of the assessee for contravening provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) 3 ITA5761/Mum/2023 Amar Anil Turathia

Satish Harnamdas Sethi, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3091/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pushkaraj Bhangepatil, Sr.AR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 56(2)(vii)

provisions of law and the same may be quashed and set aside. 3. Addition under head income from other invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act unjustified - 1,41,89,511/-. i. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action ... making addition of Rs.1,41,89,511/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act being difference between the actual purchase consideration and stamp authority valuation without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. The Appellant, therefore, prays that the addition of Rs.1,41,89,511/- is unjustified

Krishna, Bulandshahr vs. ITO Ward 2(3)(1), Bulandshahar

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3733/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godarakrishna, Vs. Ito, Vill-Hirapur Kalan Ward-2(3)(1), Post-Karvas Dibai- Bulandshahar 203393 Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Glzpk9219K Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/12/2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 50C(2)Section 56(2)(x)

cost of Rs. 4.90 lakhs as against stamp value of the relevant capital asset amounting to Rs. 12.78 lakhs and therefore, the impugned section 56(2)(x)(b) addition of Rs. 7.88 lakhs has been rightly made in her hands. 4. It is noticed in this factual background that