“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)

Exclusive Selection Chikan (P), Ltd, Lucknow vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 394/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow23 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Exclusive Selection V. National E-Assessment Chikan (P) Ltd. Centre 36, Cantt. Road Delhi G.F. Mahabir Complex Lucknow Tan/Pan:Lkneo5369A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwasnshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 23 12 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwasnshi, D.R

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

scrutiny under CASS for the reason that the purchase value of property was less than the value as per the Stamp Authority under section 56(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’). It was ITA No.394/LKW/2024 Page 2 of 6 noticed by the Income Tax Department ... Rs.58,12,000/- and the acquisition value of Rs.40,00,000/- should not be added to the income of the assessee under section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The assessee vide e- replies dated 21.12.2019 and 23.12.2019 submitted that the case of the assessee did not fall under

Siddharth Pandarinath Bhadale, Pune vs. ITO, Pne-W-(58)(91), Pune

Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1465/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 55ASection 56(2)(x)

held that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions made by the AO by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act on account of purchase of immovable property at valuation below value fixed by the stamp duty authorities. The appellant provided comprehensive clarifications and supporting ... Rs.3,29,15,400/-, whereas assessee has actually entered into transaction at Rs.2,65,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer has added difference under section 56(2) of the Act. Ld.AR submitted that assessee had requested Assessing Officer to refer the issue to the District Valuation Officer(DVO), but AO rejected

Ashok Lakharam Vanjani, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 167/NAG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 56(2)(vii)

raised following grounds:– “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances, the learned AO erred in making an addition of Rs.5,86,500 under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) to total income of the assessee and the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the same. 2. Whether on the facts

M/S. Diach Chemicals & Pigments Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 4(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1643/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana &For Respondent: Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

that as to whether the transactions in question were chargeable to income tax under the head ‘income from other sources’ under section 56(2). In addition, it was also fiercely argued as to whether the subject transactions amounted to short term or long term capital gains. (ii) All the above

M/S. Diach Chemicals & Pigments Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 4(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1642/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana &For Respondent: Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Hubballi vs. Smt. Sheela Prasannakumar, Chitradurga

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

ITA 1464/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153BSection 56(2)(x)

than the fair market value by an amount of Rs.8,06,28,310/- which is more than 50,000/-. Therefore, the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act are attracted. The share of the assessee is 28.% Accordingly, as per provisions of section 56(2 ... assessee has received Rs.2,29,09,768/- the value of the property without consideration as per provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. In this regard, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee and assessee has filed detailed written submissions which is reflecting in the Assessment

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Hubballi vs. Sri Lingaraju Gowdara Mallikarjunappa, Chitradurga

ITA 1463/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153BSection 56(2)(x)

than the fair market value by an amount of Rs.8,06,28,310/- which is more than 50,000/-. Therefore, the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act are attracted. The share of the assessee is 28.% Page 4 of 21 ITA Nos. 1463, 1464/Bang/2024 Accordingly ... provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act, the assessee has received Rs.2,29,09,768/- the value of the property without consideration as per provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. In this regard, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee and assessee

Amar Anil Turakhia, Mumbai vs. Ward 24(1)(1), Piramal Chambers

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

ITA 5761/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

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

Pankaj Chandrakant Pimple, Borivali (West), Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1577/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144C(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 56Section 56(2)Section 69

31/8/2013 at a consideration of Rs, 90 lacs, therefore stamp duty value of FY2013-2014 should be considered for the purpose of Section 56(2) of Income Tax Actl961 and not the stamp duty value of Rs.1,25,13,283/- on the date of registration of agreement on 29/8/2016 ... pertaining to that year. The ld. AO added the difference in the stamp duty value amounting to Rs. 35,13,283/- as per Section 56 (2) of the Act and the same is added as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. 4. The assessee is in appeal before

Autope Payment Solutions Private Limited, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Delhi

In the result, ground nos

ITA 86/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar Nayyar, Sr. DR

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

subsequent period. Further, he observed that the issuance of shares at a value higher than the fair market value, the provision of section 56(2)(vii-b) of the Act is applicable. He also observed that the fair market value of unquoted shares may be determined either ... shares of the assessee at Rs. 15.31 per share. Accordingly, he disallowed Rs. 90,22,347/- as differential amount as per provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) and further he proceeded to make addition of share application money of Rs. 1,82,360/- u/s 68 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved

Paramsukh Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 7(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1883/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

erred in doubting the value of share premium amount determined by the assessee company for issue of shares when neither the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) came into force from the assessment year under consideration nor the source of source as required under the amended provisions of section

Alok Gupta, Lucknow vs. Assessing Officer National E-Assessment Centre Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 404/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(X)

I.T.A. No.404/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2018-19 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE

Kangra Valley Garden Hotels Private Limited, Kangra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, Dharamshala

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by

ITA 602/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)

Section 127(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253

erred in making additions of share premium amount by ignoring that the same is not taxable in the hands of the appellant under section 56(2)(viib) read with section 5 and section 2(24)(xvi) of the Act. 7. The Ld. CIT(A)/Ld. AO have erred in levying

Kangra Valley Garden Hotels Private Limited, Kangra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, Dharamshala

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by

ITA 601/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)

Section 127(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253

Kangra Valley Garden Hotels Private Limited, Kangra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, Dharamshala

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by

ITA 600/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)

Section 127(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad vs. Mytrah Vayu (Gujarat) Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal ofthe Revenue is dismissed

ITA 172/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri P S Choudhary, CIT. DRFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

Rs.10/- each at a premium of Rs.40/- on 31.03.2015. In the course of assessment, the AO examined the applicability of provision of Section 56(2)(viib)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) in respect of share premium collected by the assessee. The assessee had furnished ... this Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Ozone India Ltd., [2021] 126 taxmann.com 192 (Ahmedabad-ITAT) had analyzed the deeming provision of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act and observed that deeming clause requires to be given a schematic interpretation. According to the Ld. Counsel, the provision

Shambhavee Shashikant Kadam, Andheri (West) vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4748/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 234BSection 56(2)(vii)Section 69

with the issue raised is against the provisions of law. (iii) Addition under the head "Income from Other Sources" invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act is unjustified. (iv) Addition by treating the purchase of residential flat as unexplained investment under section ... issued various notices calling for the assessee to show cause why the difference cannot be treated as addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The AO also issued notice requiring the assessee to furnish the source of funds for purchasing the property. The assessee did not respond

Mallesh Manthri, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 362/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.362 /Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Mallesh Manthri Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-15(1) [Pan :Akdpm3296M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Mohd.Afzal, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri R.Kumaran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 17/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.02.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2014-15 On The Following Grounds : 1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Against The Law, Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Erred In Confirming An Addition Of Rs.95,54,666/-, Which Was Made By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 56(2)(Vii)(B) Of The It Act.

For Appellant: Mohd.Afzal, ARFor Respondent: : Shri R.Kumaran, DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

case. 2. The learned Commissioner erred in confirming an addition of Rs.95,54,666/-, which was made by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the IT Act. 2 3. The learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the assessee is only a Power of Attorney holder ... market value of the property as on the date of registration does not arise and therefore, the question of invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act does not arise. The Ld.CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee and also taking note of various

Shaha Finlease Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax 13(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4182/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(1)(viib)Section 68

well as on fact in confirming addition of Ran 6,80,48,500 made by ld AO being addition of securities premium under section 56 (2) (vii)(b) without appreciating that shares were issued to existing shareholders as Right issue, hence provisions of section 56 (2 ... well as on fact in confirming addition of Rs. 6,80,48,500 made by ld. AO being addition of securities premium under section 56 (2) (vii)(b) without appreciating that shares were issued at DCF Method. valued and certified by chartered accountant on 24.09.2012, hence, rule 11UA

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Prakash Nimmagadda, Hyderabad, Secunderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 974/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.974/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dy.Cit Vs. Shri Prakash Nimmagadda Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acbpn4246R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Meghnath Chowhan, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order, Dated 20/03/2017 Of The Learned Cit (A)-9, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2008-09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Meghnath Chowhan, CIT(DR)

Section 17(2)(c)Section 28

computation of shares for purposes of Section 56 is defined at Sec 56(vib) or Section 56(2)(x) as the case may be. If shares are to be valued for Sec 28(iv) there are no valuation rules prescribed. In case of unjustified premium, the same is taxable under ... definition of income chargeable to tax under any head of the income provided under the I.T. Act, 1961 prior to the amendment to section 56(2) by Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f.1/4/2017 whereby clause (x) has been inserted. For the sake of ready Page