← 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)

Kartar Singh, Fatehabad vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

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

ITA 335/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

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

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

Sh. Ram Lal, Fatehabad vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

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

ITA 332/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

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

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

Bimla Devi, Jagadhri vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

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

ITA 328/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

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

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

Paramjit Singh, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

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

ITA 327/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

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

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

Inder Kaur, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

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

ITA 326/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

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

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

Sh. Amarjeet Singh, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

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

ITA 325/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

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

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

Sh. Gurdeep Singh Mahal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

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

ITA 233/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

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

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

Sh. Devender Kumar, Yamuna Nagar vs. ITO, Ward -1, Yamuna Nagar

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

ITA 192/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

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

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

Sh. Baljinder Singh, Chandigarh vs. Pr.CIT, Chandigarh -1, Chandigarh

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

ITA 167/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

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

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

Diabetomics Medical Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee

ITA 2149/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: CA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 56(2)(viib)

company cannot be regarded as a Venture Capital Undertaking so as to be eligible for exemption from the application of the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) as per the first proviso thereunder on the ground that the appellant company cannot be considered to be "engaged in the business ... business since it has begun to set up its business and it is eligible for exemption from the applicability of the provisions of section 56(2)(viib), being a venture capital undertaking, in respect of consideration received for issue of CCPS from a Venture capital company/fund, as per the first

Diabetomics Medical Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee

ITA 2148/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: CA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 56(2)(viib)

company cannot be regarded as a Venture Capital Undertaking so as to be eligible for exemption from the application of the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) as per the first proviso thereunder on the ground that the appellant company cannot be considered to be "engaged in the business ... business since it has begun to set up its business and it is eligible for exemption from the applicability of the provisions of section 56(2)(viib), being a venture capital undertaking, in respect of consideration received for issue of CCPS from a Venture capital company/fund, as per the first

Diabetomics Medical Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee

ITA 2147/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: CA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 56(2)(viib)

company cannot be regarded as a Venture Capital Undertaking so as to be eligible for exemption from the application of the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) as per the first proviso thereunder on the ground that the appellant company cannot be considered to be "engaged in the business ... business since it has begun to set up its business and it is eligible for exemption from the applicability of the provisions of section 56(2)(viib), being a venture capital undertaking, in respect of consideration received for issue of CCPS from a Venture capital company/fund, as per the first

Newage Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2307/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viia)

Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC was wrong in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in applying the provisions of Section 56(2)(viia) in relation to the allotment of Shares made by 3(three) Companies to the appellant and the Addition made of Rs.14,45,34,600 under ... section 56(2)(viia). 2. That without prejudice to the contention raised in Ground No. (1) above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC failed to appreciate that Shares received on Allotment by a Company could not attract the provisions of Section 56(2)(viia) and thus the Commissioner

Jaidev Vinod Kumar Gupta, Mumbai vs. Circle 13(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, he held appeal of the assessee as liable to be dismissed

ITA 6626/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sushil B. Shende, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 251Section 43CSection 50CSection 53A

transactions determining 'Profits and gains of business or profession', as held by hon’ble Bombay HC in CIT v Neelkamal Realtors. Ground 5 Section 56(2)(vii)(b) applies to receiving an immovable property Without prejudice, the ld. AO failed to realise that there is no purchase of any immovable ... property; hence section 56(2)(vii)(b) lacks applicability. The order making addition under this section, on sale of property is bad in law. Ground 6 CIT (A) fails to set-aside the order Without prejudice, the reinstating of the power of the first appellate authority to set-aside

Kuldip Singh, Ranchi vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 180/RAN/2025[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.180/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kuldip Singh…………………….……….……...................……….……Appellant The Avenue Vishnupuri Marg, Upper Burdwan Compound, Lalpur, Ranchi- 834001. [Pan: Agjps6921P] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle-1, Ranchi…...…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kailash Gautam, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 10, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 06.03.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

year. Pursuant thereto, assessment was framed under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B, making an addition of ₹77,72,000 under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The addition was made on the allegation that the assessee purchased land measuring 0.67 acre for a consideration

Brajbhumi Nirmaan Private Limited, Salt Lake vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2605/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madanappa Raghuveer, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

assessee in terms of Rule 11UA and instead adopted the book value of Rs.87.30/share as the FMV for the purposes of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. The Id. AO accordingly held that, the assessee had received excess share premium of Rs. 102.10/share [Rs.189.40 (-) Rs.87.30] and accordingly added ... Before examining the veracity of the valuation report, it is relevant to first take note of the provisions contained in Section 56(2)(viib) and the relevant Rule 11UA which reads as under: Section 56(2)(viib): "56 (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions

Gaurav Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2306/KOL/2025[205-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50DSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(viia)

Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC was wrong in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in applying the provisions of Section 56(2) (viia) in relation to the allotment of Shares made by 3(three) Companies to the appellant and the Addition made of Rs.13,53,09,500 under ... section 56(2)(viia). 2. That without prejudice to the contention raised in Ground No. (1) above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC failed to appreciate that Shares received on Allotment by a Company could not attract the provisions of Section 56(2)(viia) and thus the Commissioner

Chandra Lalit Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7535/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2017-18 Chandra Lalit Sanghvi, Income Tax Officer, 25-26, 6Th Floor, Ward-19(1)(1), Western Court Building, Vs. Piramal Chamber, 83, Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400012. Marine Drive, Mumbai-400002. Pan : Acips3131J (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ketan Vajani For Revenue : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 02-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 5O

being the difference between the purchase consideration 2 and the stamp duty valuation, invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The assessee thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has allowed partial relief to the assessee, wherein addition ... determined at Rs. 9,09,54,000/- and the AO brought to tax the whole of the differential amount invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act in the hands of the assessee. It was submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has already restricted the addition

Satender Kumar, Sarita Vihar vs. Income Tax Officer, Civic Centre

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 229/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 229/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Satender Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, 56, Ali Village, Sarita Vihar, Ward-28(1), New Delhi-110076 New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afxpk4995C Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.02.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2020-21 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1082434098(1) Dated 10.11.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

16th July, 2009 relating to the taxability of interest received on 3 Satender Kumar 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 4 Satender Kumar also referred to the decisions in the cases of Shri Manjeet Singh HUF v. UOI & Others

Braham Dutt Vashist, Gurgaon vs. ITO-Ward -1(3), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 170/DEL/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 170/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Braham Dutt Vashist, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Ca M. R. Sahu, Ward-1(3), H. No. 651, 1St Floor, Sector-10A, Gurgaon-122001 Near G. D. Goenka Public School, Gurgaon-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Affpv0127D Assessee By: Sh. M. R. Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.02.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1083989454(1) Dated 23.12.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. M. R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

July, 2009 relating to the taxability of interest received on 3 Braham Dutt Vashist 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 4 Braham Dutt Vashist also referred to the decisions in the cases of Shri Manjeet Singh