← 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)

Rohan Santosh Yadav, Dadar West vs. Income Tax Officer Natinal E-Assesment Centre Delhi, Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3062/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2018-19 Rohan Santosh Income Tax Officer Yadav National E- Flat No. 7, Assessment Centre, Alhad Co. Op. Hsg. Mumbai. Soc. Ltd., Agashi Road, Vs. Portugese Church, Dadar West, Mumbai- 400028. Pan: Adgpy2523B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, SR. D.R
Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

Appeal (NFAC), DELHI has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making the addition of Rs.42,41,500/- under section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, even though the initial agreement for purchases was made in the year 2012 when the Appellant had acquired ... erred in not considering the fact that the advance payment of purchases was made by banking channel in the year 2010 when section 56(2)(x) was not there in the Income Tax Act. 4. The Appellant craves to alter, add, delete, substitute, or modify and other grounds of appeal

Urvi Premal Shah, Bandra-East vs. ITO, Ward-19(3)(1), Tardeo Road

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 170/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI BR BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 149(1)(ii)Section 250Section 56(2)(X)Section 68

paper book at page 46 and 47. The assessee has not sold the gifted shares during the year under consideration. According to section 56(2)(X), the gift being from the relative of the assessee is wholly exempt from tax. There cannot be treated any profit or gain ... spouse, who is a relative in terms of explanation (a) attached to the proviso to clause (xiii) r/w explanation to clause (vii) of section 56(2) of the Act. The gifted shares of Rs. 2,73,06,266/- were recorded by the assessee in her account exhibiting the cost

Abhaykumar Sevantilal Sanghavi, Deesa vs. The ACIT, Circle- Palanpur, Palanpur

Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1368/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1367/Ahd/2024 & 1368/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Abhaykumar Sevantilal Acit Circle, Palanpur बनाम/ Sanghavi [Old Jurisdiction-Circle, V/S. Sanghavi Brothers Palanpur. 1St Floor, Swastik Bldg New Jurisdiction-Circle, Nr. City Police Station Gandhinagar.] Nr. Dena Bank, Main Bazar Deesa – 385 535 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afbps 1660 L (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Pertain To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2016-17 & 2017-18. Since The Issues Involved Are Common & Connected, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. The Appeals Arise Out Of The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23(4)Section 250Section 68

Julieben Sanghavi is the wife of the assessee’s brother, thus establishing that the donor is a relative within the meaning of Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. The relationship, which was not disclosed during the assessment, was satisfactorily explained during the appellate proceedings. The additional documents submitted demonstrate

Abhaykumar Sevantilal Sanghavi, Deesa vs. Old Jurisdiction- Circle, Palanpur New Jurisdiction-Circle, Gandhinagar

Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1367/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1367/Ahd/2024 & 1368/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Abhaykumar Sevantilal Acit Circle, Palanpur बनाम/ Sanghavi [Old Jurisdiction-Circle, V/S. Sanghavi Brothers Palanpur. 1St Floor, Swastik Bldg New Jurisdiction-Circle, Nr. City Police Station Gandhinagar.] Nr. Dena Bank, Main Bazar Deesa – 385 535 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afbps 1660 L (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Pertain To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2016-17 & 2017-18. Since The Issues Involved Are Common & Connected, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. The Appeals Arise Out Of The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23(4)Section 250Section 68

Julieben Sanghavi is the wife of the assessee’s brother, thus establishing that the donor is a relative within the meaning of Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. The relationship, which was not disclosed during the assessment, was satisfactorily explained during the appellate proceedings. The additional documents submitted demonstrate

Mili Marketing Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-16(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 2319/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year : 2016-17] M/S. Mili Marketing Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, H-108, Connaught Circus, Ward-16(4), New Delhi-110001. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcm7097H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ved Jain, Adv & Shri Aman Garg, Ca Respondent By Ms. Smita Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2024

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

share in response thereto. The assessee has duly filed the computation and justified the value in terms of Rules 11UA read with section 56(2)(vii) (b) (PB Pg.51-54) and no adverse view has been taken by the assessing officer. Thus, the share capital and the share premium received

Niket Ravibhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1215/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarnad Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 50C

Market Value of land determined by DVO was within 10% of purchase price, showing no significant difference from purchase consideration, no addition under section 56(2)(x) was warranted in such cases. Thus Ld. Counsel pleaded to allow the appeal. 6. Per contra The Ld. Sr. D.R. appearing

Mulkh Raj Mehta and Sons HUF, Hisar vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2406/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 2406/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Mulkh Raj Mehta & Sons Huf, Vs Pr. Cit, 374, Sector-15A, Hisar, Rohtak, Haryana-125001 Haryana-124001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaihm9927L Assessee By : Sh. Mahfuzur Rahman, Ca & Sh. Surajh Bhan Nain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Order Of Pcit, Rohtak Dated 18.03.2024 In Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023-24/1062878615(1), In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Mahfuzur Rahman, CA &For Respondent: Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 145B(1)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

department’s endeavour in the instant case to assess the assessee’s interest received u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, by invoking section 56(2)(viii) r.w.s. 3 Mulkh Raj Mehta & Sons HUF 145A clause (b) of the Act. The learned departmental representative seeks to buttress the point that ... 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

Jagjit Singh Kataria, Sonepat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1245/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US (Judicial Member)

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

from other sources”. The Judgments supra relied upon by the Assessee have been rendered in respect of Assessment Years prior to introduction of Section 56(2)(viii), 57(iv) and 145A(b) by Finance Act 2009 w.e.f 01/04/2010. Further, 5 Jagjit Singh Kataria Vs. Pr. CIT the Department's Representative ... present appeal is whether the interest on enhanced compensation received by the respondent-assessee partakes the character of income from other sources under Section 56(2)(viii) of the Act, to be considered as separable from the enhanced compensation. 19. At the outset, it is significant to refer to Sections

Vaishnav Yashwant Ashtankar, Nagpur vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Nagpur 2, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 240/NAG/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 44ASection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

therefore, as this amount exceeded ` 50,000, the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act were attracted. The share of the assessee, as per purchase deed was 1/3rd which works out to ` 5,64,666 (1/3rd of ` 16,94,000), therefore, the Assessing Officer held that this ... Rs.1,19,79,000 1,02,85,000). Therefore, as this amount exceeded fifty thousand rupees, provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act were attracted. The share of the assessee, as per purchase deed was 1/3rd which works out to Rs.5,64,666/- (1/3rd

Yashwant Pandurangji Ashtankar, Nagpur vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Nagpur - 2, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 236/NAG/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

stated that in view of this he had objection in treating Rs.5,64.666/-, as income from other sources as per the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the IT Act. The assessee also relied on the following judgements stating that in these it was held that the difference ... strongly supported the order passed by the learned PCIT and submitted that the Assessing Officer’s order is contrary to the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. He strongly supported the order passed by the learned PCIT. 9. We have heard the rival arguments, perused

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Meerut vs. Smt. Kamlesh, Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2152/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Vs. Smt. Kamlesh, Central Circle, 1402/1403, Vidhyanchal Meerut Tower, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad Pan :Akypk3905E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rohit Agarwal, Ca Department By Ms. Jaya Choudhary, Cit(Dr)

Section 153ASection 56(2)(vi)Section 68

discharged its onus of proving genuineness/creditworthiness of the impugned unsecured loans in foregoing terms. Rejected accordingly. 9. Next comes the second issue of section 56(2)(vi)(b)(ii) addition of Rs.43.73 lakhs representing the actual difference between the stamp price paid by the assessee of Rs.58.73 lakhs as against ... twin remand reports (supra) that the assessee’s land purchased herein forms a “capital” asset so as to satisfy the rigor of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(i) of the Act wherein the legislature has itself incorporated the clinching statutory expression “property; means the following capital asset of the assessee

Tejas C. Joshi, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-5(3)(Original Jurisdiction) the Dy. CIT, Cent. Circle 2(2) (Present Jurisdiction), Ahmedabad

ITA 912/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 912/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) बनाम/ Tejas C Joshi Dy. Commissioner Of 9A, Santosa Park Society, Income Tax Vs. Nr. Aadiraj Bunglow, Central Circle 5(3), Iskon Ambli Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad (Original Ahmedabad - 380058 Jurisdiction) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 2(2), Ahmedabad (Present Jurisdiction) "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanpj4735G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Hardik Vora, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Prasad Rao Waghe Annasaheb, Sr. Dr 22/11/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prasad Rao Waghe Annasaheb
Section 56(2)(vii)

only. The AO, therefore, added the difference amount of Rs.2,51,39,530/- as income of the assessee under the provision of Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). ITA No. 912/Ahd/2023 [DCIT vs. Tejas C. Joshi

Nishant Choudhary, Fatehabad vs. ITO, Ward-1, Fatehabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2863/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 2863/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Nishant Choudhary, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/O Sh. Vijay Choudhary, Choudhary Ward-1, Niwas, G.T. Road (Opp. Ratia Fatehabad, Crossing), Fatehabad, Haryana-125050 Haryana-125050 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aempc0965Q Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16, Arises Against The Order Of Cit(A)-5, Ludhiana Dated 13.02.2019 In Case No. 255/Rot/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2018-19, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145B(1)Section 263Section 28

department endeavour in the instant case to assess the assessee’s interest received u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, by invoking section 56(2)(viii) r.w.s. 145A clause (b) of the Act. The learned departmental representative seeks to buttress the point that the legislature has itself sought to assess ... 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

Dharmesh Ramesh Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. The Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit Faceless Assessments, Delhi

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

ITA 5472/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2017-18 Dharmesh Ramesh Jhaveri, The Asst./Dy. Commissioner Of 1 & 2,Bhagyodaya Building, Income Tax, Sarojini Road, Vs. Circle-2(2)(1), Vile Parle (West), Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Mumbai. Aayakar Bhavan, Pan : Aacpj6530G M.K. Road, Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Lalchand Choudhary, For Revenue : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-12-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04-12-2024 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran, A.M : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dt. 28-08- 2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟] & It Relates To Ay. 2017-18. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Decision Of The Ld.Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50.06 Lakhs Made By The Ao U/S. 56(2)(Vii)(B)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟).

For Appellant: Shri Lalchand ChoudharyFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.DR
Section 56(2)(vii)

assessee had paid an advance of Rs. 1 lakh on 16-05-2010. Accordingly, by placing reliance on the proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act, the assessee contended that the stamp duty value as on the date of allotment should be considered for the purpose ... section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. The assessee submitted that the stamp duty value as on the date of allotment was Rs.40,34,880/- and it was less than the purchase consideration. Accordingly, the assessee contended that no addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) is called

Income Tax Officer, Main Building vs. Priya Estate Developers Private Limited, Abhiramapuram, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1244/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1244/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ito M/S. Priya Estate Developers Private Ltd. बनाम/ Corporate Ward-5(2) #11, Bashyam Basheer Ahmed Road Vs. Chennai. Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Pan No. Aahcp-5405-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) – Ld. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) -Ld. Ar (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) -Ld. AR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

valuer on the date of valuation i.e. 27.07.2020. d. Sub-clause (2) of Clause A of Explanation to the second proviso to Section 56(2)(viib) clearly stipulates that the assessee should satisfy the AO about the basis for the valuation of the shares and this was clearly not done

Spl Infrastructure Pvt. Lt, Alwarpet, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai

ITA 325/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.325/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Spl Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 15, Kasturi Rangan Road, Corporate Circle – 6(1), Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [Pan: Aaics0881N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.03.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Raised 11 Grounds Of Appeal. The Ld. Ar Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate, Drew Our Attention To Ground No. 11 & Submits That This Matter Requires To Be Remanded To The File Of The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

only one issue of challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 4. We note that on an examination of the records during the course of assessment ... received share price over and above the face value of the shares and there is no exclusion clause for non- applicability of section 56(2)(viib) for receipts from family members. Therefore, the provision of section 56(2)(viib) is applicable in the instant case. Also, this section prescribes that

Sheena Singh, Mumbai vs. I.T.O Ward 41(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 5365/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailsheena Singh, B/303 Mayfair Marvel, Ahimsa Marg, Chincholi Bunder Road, Malad West, Mumbai, Dely S.O. – 400064, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra Pan: Bakps1701F V/S

For Appellant: Shri R.B. PopatFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

prove the nature and source of the deposit. Further, the AO also made an addition amounting to INR 6,57,000 under section 56(2)(x) of the Act on account of the difference in the stamp authority value and the registered value in the absence of any proper explanation ... learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, granted partial relief to the assessee and deleted the addition of INR 6,57,000 made under section 56(2)(x) of the Act. As regards the addition of INR 80 lakh made under section 69 of the Act, the assessee submitted various details

Deepchand Khetmal Jain, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

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

ITA 4223/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: 17.10.2024
Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 270ASection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

appeal: “1. On the facts and Circumstances of the case the NFAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs.79,00,000/- under section 56(2) (vii) of the Income Tax Act 1961 and thereby erred in confirming and treating the difference between purchase value of immovable property and stamp duty

Gobind, New Delhi vs. CIT(A), Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 400/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 147Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

parties at length. Case file perused. 2. Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive ground challenging both the lower authorities’ action making section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) addition of Rs. 27,98,544/- representing the difference between actual purchase price of Rs. 36,65,640/- as against stamp price ... relevant capital asset was in fact “lease rights” only than an “immovable property” with title. Faced with this clinching aspect, I hereby quote Section 56(2)(vii) Explanation (d)(i) that the legislature has envisaged “property” as “immovable property, being land or building or both”. It is made clear that

ACIT Central Circle-1, Faridabad vs. Krishan Singla, New Delhi

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

ITA 8435/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 56(2)(viii)

seized during the course of search proceedings which prompted such addition made in the case of the assessee. 12. We also note that Section 56(2)(viii) of the Act is a deeming provision and the issue in this case under consideration is the pricing of the shares without