← 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)

G S Farm Taaza Produce Private Limited., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (OSD), Range-3(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1255/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri BS Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V Parithivel, JCIT (DR)
Section 154Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

primary issue under appeal pertains to the CIT(A)’s affirmation of an addition of INR 3,04,42,500/- under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, relating to a share premium received by the appellant. 5.1 The appellant operates within the Agri-trade sector, primarily sourcing agricultural produce ... Based on these concerns, the AO rejected the DCF valuation in favor of the Net Asset Value (NAV) method, as prescribed under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act read with Rule 11UA of Income Tax Rules, ultimately assigning a nil fair market value to the shares and disallowing

Bimla, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-38(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 7973/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekbimla, Vs. Ito, Ward 38 (5), H.No.143, Village Hamidpur, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 036. (Pan : Bpdpb9344B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2024 Date Of Order : 26.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals-13, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Cit (A)’) Dated 23.07.2019 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,23,030/- On 14.08.2014. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Notices

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143Section 143(2)Section 69

purchase amount at Rs.1,63,50,103/- on the basis of circle rate on which stamp duty was paid in the light of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act and directed the difference of amount between circle rate and actual amount paid by the assessee ... brought to our notice para 5.6 of the appellate order and submitted that ld. CIT (A) has invoked the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act to confirm the addition of Rs.93,50,103/- being the difference of circle rate and actual purchase price. In this

Income Tax Officer, Matigara vs. Matigara Realtors Private Limited, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1904/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 56(2)(x)

No.1904/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Matigara Realtors Pvt. Ltd. properties were only on leasehold basis and therefore not covered by the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income during the assessment year on 31.12.2018 declaring total ... taken on leasehold basis and were not transactions of purchase of properties and therefore did not falls within the ambit of provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. However, the AO brushed aside the contentions of the assessee and invoked the provisions of Section 56(2

Sandeep Sundar Bhoir, Dombivli. Maharashtra vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

ITA 5012/MUM/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rohit C. Kapure, ARFor Respondent: 21.11.2024
Section 2(14)Section 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

following ground of appeal – “1. The Learned Assessing officer has not considered the provisions of section 2(14) and explanation (d) to section 56(2) clause (vii) while applying section 56(2)(x) while passing the Assessment Order. In pursuance the said order demand of Rs. 39,76,208/- (Rupees

Income Tax Officer Ward 41(1)(3), Mumbai, Income Tax Department vs. Nabi Ahmed Shafi Ahmed Sayed, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 3470/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Praveen B. Shetty, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath, Ld. Sr. A.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

Assessee for the current assessment year, however the Ld. Commissioner applying the accepted principle of the interpretation of the provisions of section 56(2) of the Act, to the effect “that if the value adopted for stamp duty is not more than 10% of the deed value then such extra

Kolet Resort Club Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 812/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

issued shares at face value of Rs. 10/- per share and not at any premium rate and that therefore the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act are not attracted. 11. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that shares were not issued by the appellant ... viib) of the Act and rule 11UA does not arise. 12. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act are inapplicable for transactions between a holding company and its subsidiary company. 13. The appellant may add or alter

Parasmani Gems Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Cir-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2263/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2263/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) बनाम/ Parasmani Gems Pvt. Ltd. The D.C.I.T. 2, Supan Complex, Nr. Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. Dharnidhar Derasar, Paldi, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 380006 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcp6337M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul K Patel, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/10/2024 21/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 234ASection 56(2)(viib)

share only. The AO, therefore, required the assessee to justify the consideration for shares issued on 03.11.2012 in accordance with the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). It was explained that the shares allotted on 03.11.2012 were on the basis ... learned CIT (A) ought to have accepted the valuation done by appellant's C.A. and ought to have held that the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act are not applicable and the entire addition ought to have been deleted, as prayed for. (3) That on facts Commissioner

Max Hospitals and Allied Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai -3, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2907/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2018-19 Max Hospitals & Principal Allied Services Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor, Income Tax Mumbai- 3 Man Excellenza, Room No.612, Vs. S. V. Road, 6Th Floor, Vile Parle (W.), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400056 Maharishi Karve Road, Pan: Aagcr9198D Mumbai- 400020. Appellant : Respondent

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogia Nagpal (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(viib)

assessment proceedings and the learned Assessing Officer has accepted the valuation & allowed the same after making proper & specific enquiry with reference to Section 56(2)(viib) for valuation of shares. The assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer after due application of mind and after making due investigation / enquiries ... interest of the revenue and hence the order of revision is bad in law. 3. The Learned PCIT failed to appreciate that Section 56(2)(viib) is not attracted in the facts of the present case as Appellant has issued shares on premium on the basis of valuation report obtained

Swati Sanjay Khadye, Tardeo Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(1), Piramal Chamber Lalbaug

ITA 2749/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(5)Section 43CSection 56(2)(x)

appeal raised by the Assessee: “1. The learned Assessing Officer erred in law and facts in making addition of Rs.7,06,225 under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. 2. The learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the established legal position that the variation between Stamp Value ... lead to the inference that the entire difference should be added back as Income from other sources by inviting the regours of see section 56(2)(x). 3. The learned Assessing Officer erred in fact and in law in not appreciating that the difference between the Stamp Value

Vachaspati Sharma, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward -4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1180/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Vachaspati Sharma Vs Ito Village – Hayatpur Garhi Ward-4 Harsaru, Hayatpur, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan No.Fnqps2021R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate Sh. K.L. Pahwa, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 Order Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Jm :

Section 10Section 10(37)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 18Section 234BSection 234DSection 28Section 45(5)Section 56

received on enhanced compensation paid for acquisition of land is taxable as income from other sources as per the provision of section 56(2) read with section 57(iv) and 145A(b) of the Act in the year of receipt of the interest. He has further submitted that ... further submitted that after the judgment of the Ghanshyam’s HUF case (Supra) the legislature introduced the provisions of section 56(2) (viii) vide an amendment w.e.f.1-04-2010 by the Finance Act (No2) Act ,2009. She has further submitted that in the case of Mahender Pal Narang v DBDT New Delhi

Tamal Kundu, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 37, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1797/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 1797/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT
Section 2(47)(vi)Section 234ASection 250Section 56(2)(X)Section 56(2)(x)

facts and circumstances of case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO ought to have applied the provision of section 56(2)(x) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of purchase of immovable property by the appellant ... hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') without considering the stamp duty value as on date of agreement as per first proviso to section 56(2)(x) of the Act on the alleged ground that the agreement to sell is not registered without appreciating the fact that there is no mandate

Sills Karingattil Jose, Nedumkandom vs. ITO Ward 2, Thodupuzha

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 132/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhsils Karingattil Jose Income Tax Officer Np 3/406, Karingattil Ward - 2, House, Munnar Road Thodupuzha Vs. Nedumkandom P.O. [Pan: Afopj8789C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(V)Section 250Section 50CSection 53ASection 56(2)(vii)

principles of law.” 4. Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised herein challenging correctness of both the lower authorities action making Section 56(2)(vii)(c)(ii) addition of Rs.11,67,000/-, in the course of assessment as upheld in the lower appellate discussion, we note that ... transfer in light of (2024) 460 ITR 628 (Guj.) PCIT Vs. Jigar Jashwantlal Shah rejecting the Revenue’s identical stand as under: 6. Section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act, reads as under: "56. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section

Vijay Vinod Duragkar, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 339/NAG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

case and in law, the AO grossly erred in making and the CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) treating the stamp duty valuation of the property as the fair market value determining the fair market value of the property and without referring ... case and in law, the AO grossly erred in making and the CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) treating the stamp duty valuation of the property as the fair market value ignoring the fact that the property suffered from various disadvantages

Amit Shrivastav, Mumbai vs. The Assessment Unit - National Faceless Assessment Center (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 65/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), The Appellant Pleaded That The Differential Was Less Than 10% But More Than 5% (Being The Tolerance Available For The Assessment Year In Question) & Hence For The Year Under Consideration The Safe Harbour Limit Of 5% Only Would Apply & Since The Impugned Amount Was More Than That Limit, He Sustained The Addition.

Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

operative part of the decision is extracted as under: “17. It is further relevant to observe, section 50C or for that matter section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) are identical provisions. Only difference being, 50C is applicable to the seller of an immovable property, whereas, the later provision is applicable ... value determined by the stamp duty authority and the declared sale consideration is less than 10%, no addition can be made under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. 18. Having held so, the second aspect of the issue which requires consideration is whether the exception to section

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 7(1), Kolkata vs. Ashiana Housing Limited, Kolkata

In the result, with these remarks, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1391/KOL/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 43C

case of Karb Associates Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we unhesitatingly hold that the amendment of increasing the tolerance band from 5% to 10% under section 56(2)(x) brought in by Finance Act, 2020 had to be read retrospectively being clarificatory/curative in nature and, therefore, since the difference between the valuation

Late Muthumalainadar Krishnavel, Represented by 6 Legal Heirs, Tuticorin vs. PCIT-1, Madurai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1018/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1018/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. K.Indira, Pcit-1 Shri K.Muthuvel, Madurai. Shri Selvakumaran, Shri M.K.Balaji बनाम/ Shri K.Ragupathy, Shri K.Sudhakar Vs. All L/Hs Of Late Shri Muthumalainadar Krishnavel, 15, Melanavaladivillai, Arumuganeri, Tuticorin-628 202. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bctpk-6952-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S.Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-08-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

PCIT erred in directing the Assessing Officer to add a sum of Rs. 81,64,050/- as income in terms of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act constituting the difference the purchase value and the guideline value of the immovable property purchased without assigning proper reasons and justification ... appellant in the capacity of individual, thereby vitiating the revision order. 10. The PCIT failed to appreciate that the issue of applicability of Section 56[2)[vii)[b)[ii) of the Act was considered in the re-assessment proceedings and ought to have appreciated that there was no Violation

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Amar Prakash Developers Private Limited, Chrompet, Chennai

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

ITA 577/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.577/Chny/2024 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Amar Prakash Developers Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1), Vs. Pvt. Ltd, Chennai No.314, Pattamal Complex, G.S.T.Road, Chrompet, Tamil Nadu-600 044. [Pan: Aahca6244J]

For Respondent: Shri V.Nandakumar, CIT
Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Lalitha Jewelly Mart Pvt. Ltd in ITA Nos. 663, 664, 665/Chny/2019 has, examining applicability of section 56(2)(viib), held that “if the assessing officer is not satisfied about the valuation, he has to call for material from the assesse ... take into consideration the well established method of valuation of shares including the asset as explained in Explanation-2 to section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. It cannot be arbitrary…”. Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in their decision in the case of Agro Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. 94 Taxman.112 have held

Deepak Kumar Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4879/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 56(2)(x)

learned A.O. [FAO] erred in making an addition of Rs. 57,20,450/- to the other income of the appellant under section 56(2)(x) of the Act, without appreciating the facts and explanations provided by the appellant. (b) In the facts and circumstances of the case

Tabrez Arif Lakha, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 31(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3650/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Kanabar, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 43CSection 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

applicable as they apply to builder/developer only, which is not a case for the assessee. Also, it is contended that provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) are applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2014, i.e. AY 2014-15 and the present case is for AY 2013-14. At best, ld. AO ought to have

ITO, Lower Parel vs. Sohit Shravankumar Sadh, Lower Parel

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

ITA 3180/MUM/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2024

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Income Tax Officer Sohit Shravankumar Sadh Room No. 213, 3Rd Floor, A-2, Unit No. 79, Shah & Amp, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Nahar Industrial Estate, Mumbai – 400 012 S J Road, Mumbai-400 013

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

Revenue relied on the order of the ld. A.O. and contended that the assessee has failed to comply with the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. 8. The learned Authorised Representative ('ld. AR' for short) for the assessee contended that ground no. 1 raised by the Revenue ... Trib) ACIT vs. Smt. Hansaben B. Mehta 287 ITR 142 (Pune-ITAT) Smt. Nargis K. Irani vs. ITO 10. The ld. A.O. invoked section 56(2)(vii)(b) in his first draft assessment order dated 15.02.2021 and, subsequently invoked section 56(2