← 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)

Shailesh Sundar Bhoir, Dist Thane, Maharashtra vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, Delhi

ITA 1782/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharshi & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(14)Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

raised following grounds: - 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. 2. The transaction under consideration is purchase of Agricultural Land by the Appellant

Pallav Rajnikant Pancholi, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2, International Taxation, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 489/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.489/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pallav Rajnikant Pancholi The Ito बनाम/ 903, Anurag Flats Ward-2, International Taxation V/S. Nr.Vidhyanagar School Ahmedabad Usmanpura Ahmedabad – 380 014 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Ceepp 9266 D अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh C. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prithviraj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh C. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prithviraj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148ASection 56(2)(x)Section 69A

account. The DRP took the alternate view that the amount deposited in the NRE account should be treated as a gift under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The DRP suggested that since the amount was withdrawn by Mr. Shreekanth Shenoi, an employee of Water Pallav Rajnikant Pancholi ... report, the DRP ignored these findings and directed to the AO to proceed with the alternate treatment as income to be taxed under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The AO passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act r.w.s. 144C (13) of the Act adding Rs.25

Aslam Fazlurehman Kagdi, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 131/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

market value of the entire property exceeded the claimed sales consideration by Rs.1,02,37,775/-. The PCIT observed that the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act should have been attracted in respect of the purchase made by the assessee for immovable property

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Samagra Wealthmax Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the learned AO is dismissed

ITA 2165/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Samagra Wealthmax Income Tax, Private Limited, Central Circle-3(4) 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre Room No. 1915, 19Th 37-40 Vs. Floor, Subhash Road, Air India Building, Vile Parle East, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 057 Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaqcs5451E

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule – CIT
Section 19Section 41(1)

covered under the provisions of Clause(v) of Section 47 of the Act. Consequently, the assessee cannot claim the benefit of Section 56(2)(X) (c) of the Act. According to the Assessing Officer all the three companies are different entities. The Assessing Officer further noted that the Directors ... merger consideration. Thus, it is evident that the assessee company has received assets worth Rs.149.29 crores without consideration. Accordingly, the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) (c) of the Act are applicable. 07. Thus, according to him, the issue of diminution in value of investment can be separately dealt with

Bharatkumar Kantiji Thakor, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 1358/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumarasstt.Year : 2010-11 Bharatkumar Kantiji Thakor Ito, Ward-1 113-1, Koteshwar Gam Vs Gandhinagar. Vadvalo Vas Motera Gam Gandhinagar. Pan : Akgpt 9389 P (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Parin Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ravindra, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr.DR
Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

treating investment made as unexplained investment. 8. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.72,153/- by invoking section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 9. The order passed by NFAC is in violation of section 250(6) of the Act and accordingly, same

Ace Cabs Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Delhi, C R Building

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanace Cabs Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1 (2), 562, Silver Oak Lane, Delhi. M.G. Road, Ghitorni, Delhi – 110 030. (Pan : Aaica4494R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate Ms. Bharti Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 12.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Submitted An Application Under Rule 29 Of The Itat Rules For Admitting The Additional Evidences & The Contents Thereof Are Reproduced Below:-

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

high valuation of shares done by the assessee, correctness of DCF method adopted for the valuation, and the applicability of the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. (v) It is also important to mention that although the AO asked the assessee to furnish the PAN details, current ... valuation of shares done by the assessee, correctness of DCF method adopted for the valuation, and the applicability of the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act specifically for the allotment of SEED Compulsory Convertible Preference Shares (CCPS). 8. In order to verify the share allotment

Sudhakar Ratan Shanker Gautam, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1033/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1033/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sudhakar Ratan Shanker The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Gautam Ward-1(1)(3) V/S. F-93, Tirthdham Apartment Ahmedabad Nr. Surel Flats, Bodakdev Ahmedabad – 380 054 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Ahapg 7698 F (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kushal Fofaria, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Bhavna Gupta Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Fofaria, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Bhavna Gupta Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 17(3)Section 17(3)(i)Section 234ASection 270A

loss of employment, and should be treated as a capital receipt. 5.2. The AR contended that even after insertion of section 56(2)(xi) of the Act with effect from 01-04-2019, the Pune Bench of the Tribunal has decided in favour of assessee in case of Ashok Raghunathrao ... salary income Sudhakar Ratan Shankar Gautam vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2018-19 or can be treated as a non-taxable capital receipt. Section 56(2)(xi), introduced w.e.f. 1st April 2019, deals with compensation received or receivable in connection with the termination or modification of terms of employment contracts. However

Issa Mohammad, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 44(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1569/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Issa Mohammad Ito, Ward-44(1), Kolkata 37/1/2, Cossipore Road, P.O. Cossipore- Vs 700002. (Pan: Akppm7454B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Additional Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’].

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Additional CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

purchased an immovable property for Rs. 33,00,000/- while stamp duty value for the property was Rs.83,21,918/-. In accordance with section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, the difference between the stamp duty and purchase consideration (Rs.50,21,918/-) was added to the assessee’s total

Tamojit Das, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 63(3), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1200/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 154Section 56(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

assessee has taken seven grounds of appeal, but in brief, his grievance is whether any addition could be made in his hand under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act on the ground that cost of a property purchased by him along with his mother would ... both these amounts of Rs.14,68,785/- was treated by the ld. Assessing Officer as a deemed gift within the meaning of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. When assessee was confronted with, then the assessee has submitted that he has booked this flat with

Pallath Nafeesa, Malappuram vs. ITO, Tirur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee allowed

ITA 118/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Pallath Nafeesa The Income Tax Officer Poolakkodan House Tirur Athirumada, Punnathala Vs. Tirur, Malappuram 676552 [Pan: Alipn9300R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shaji Paulose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R
Section 10(37)Section 145ASection 194ASection 197Section 28Section 34Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

compensation shall be exempted u/s 10(37) of the Actor chargeable to tax as income from other sources as per the provisions of section 56(2)(viii) r.w.s. 145A(b) of the Act. In this regard we note that the issue on hand is squarely covered in favour ... interest amount received under section 28 of the Act of 1894 is taxable as per the provisions of section 57(iv) read with section 56(2)(viii) and section 145A(b) of the I.T. Act. Section 145A of the I.T. bears the heading "Method of accounting in certain cases". Section

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/AHD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri. T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)

erred in holding in para 2 of his order that the Assessing Officer had failed to examine the aspect of applicability of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 6. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in appreciating the fact of furnishing of all details relating ... submitted a detailed written submission raising various issues and compilation of case laws on the subject. Ld. counsel brought to our notice that section 56(2)(vii) is not applicable in the present case of the assessee, since the transfer of shares was done between I.T.A No. 278/Ahd/2022

Reba Roy, Coochbehar vs. A.O. Ward 2(1), Coochbehar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 721/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

aforesaid transaction was by the Class-I relative of the assessee i.e. mother of the assessee to the assessee, therefore, the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act are not attracted in this case, hence, the impugned addition is not sustainable. Accordingly, the same is ordered

Go Fashion (India) Limited, Nungambakkam, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai-1, Nungambakkam Chennai

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

ITA 939/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.939/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Go Fashion (India) Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of 4 (Old 144), Sathak Center, Vs. Income Tax, Fifth Floor, Chennai-1. Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam S.O, Nungabakkam, Chennai-600034. [Pan: Aadcg 9557C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Ramachandran, Fca Hiथ" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M : Aforesaid Appeal Filed By The Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-1 [Hereinafter “Pcit”] Dated 29.02.2024 Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramachandran, FCA
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

value the compulsory convertible preference shares and the valuation of compulsory convertible preference shares has been brought in only w.e.f 25.09.2023 and therefore, section 56(2)(viib) has no application in such share. :- 5 -: 5. The Ld. CIT-Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, relied on the order passed ... question No.9 has asked for a detailed note on determination of the fair market value of the issued share as per section 56(2)(viib) and the assessee has submitted the details after which the A.O has not made any addition. It is also seen that Rule 11UA has been

Jalaluddin Mohammed Ali Khan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 26(1)(4) Mumbai, Bandra East

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 47/MUM/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jalaluddin Mohammed Ali Khan, Ito Ward-26(1)(4), A/9 Sharif Market Laxminarayan Pratyakshakar Bhavan C-11 Vs. Mandir Road, Off Kherani Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Sakinaka, S.O. Bandra East, Mumbai-400072. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Anppk 9394 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: 02/07/2024
Section 56(2)(vii)

Appeals], NFAC, New Delhi has erred in confirming the addition CIT[Appeals], NFAC, New Delhi has erred in confirming the addition under section 56(2)(vii) of the Act amounting to Rs.85.88.466 under section 56(2)(vii) of the Act amounting to Rs.85.88.466 under section 56(2 ... hence proviso to was paid by banking channel also and hence proviso to was paid by banking channel also and hence proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) are applicable. 56(2)(vii)(b) are applicable. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee is an Briefly

Sangeeta Ravindra Chanadan, Mumbai vs. 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 457/Mum/2024 is allowed

ITA 457/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Ms. Asifa KhanFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon SRDR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as "the CIT(A)"] erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 54,08,000/- under section 56(2)(x) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] being 50% of the stamp duty valuation in respect ... name of the Appellant is akin to the transfer of ownership rights in the said immoveable property and (ii) the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act includes the transfer of tenancy rights in the said immoveable property and therefore, it is applicable in the case

Vishal Balvantrai Agarwal, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad -1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 226/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.226/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Vishal Balvantrai Agarwal The Pr.Cit बनाम/ 249 New Cloth Market Ahmedabad-1 V/S. O/S. Raipur Gate Ahmedabad – 380 002 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Adbpa 4462 G (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Divyakant Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Divyakant Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 57

assessee’s non-cooperation during assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer did not verify the details regarding the applicability of provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) and Section 68 of the Act and these transactions undertaken by the assessee company during the relevant Financial Year.” 7.2. The non-consideration

Vipinchandra M. Chokhawali, Navapur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Dhule

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the Stay Application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1551/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1551/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Along With Stay Application 06/Pun/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1551/Pun/2024) Vipinchandra M. Chokhawala, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Old Station Road, Dal Mill, Dhule Nandurbar, Navapur-425418 Maharashtra Pan : Adnpc8588M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Amit Khatiwala and Shri Jitendra SanghaviFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

total income of Rs.2,47,55,960/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs.1,69,31,706/- invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. 3. The factual background leading to the above addition is as under : During the previous year relevant ... Rs.4,18,62,535/- which comes to Rs.1,69,31,706/-, should be treated as ‘Income from Other Sources’ interms of provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, he brought to tax the said sum S.A.No.06/PUN/2024 rejecting the contention of the appellant that the stamp

Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3), Nagpur vs. Shri Waman Mahadeorao Sarode, Nagpur

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

ITA 189/NAG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 147Section 148Section 250(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

market value of ` 1,76,90,000, needs to be 3 Shri Waman Mahadeorao Sarode treated as income from other sources under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). Accordingly, the assessee’s case was re– opened under section ... agricultural income. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee has not followed the provisions of 4 Shri Waman Mahadeorao Sarode section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, as the assessee has not made payment by any mode other than cash. The assessee is not getting the benefit

Vijay Kumar Bhan, Thane vs. ITO-Cir-42(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1799/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Vijay Kumar Bhan Ito Circle 42(3)(1) Flat No. 602, Surbharlokpuram, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra E, Hiranandani Meadows, Thane (W), Vs. Mumbai-400 051 Thane – 400 610

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh R ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 2Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

late possession of the flat received by the assessee from the builder would fall under the head ‘income from other sources’ as per section 56(2)(x) of the I. T. Act as being a ‘revenue receipt’. 7. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the impugned ... upheld the said addition treating the same to be as a ‘revenue receipt’ under the head ‘income from other sources’ as per section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) for the Revenue, on the other hand, relied on the order

Subrata Das, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 44(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1462/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1462/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Subrata Das………………..…….…....…………….......…....………....Appellant P-347, Cit Road, Scheme Vim Kankurgachi, Kolkata – 700054. [Pan: Acxpd9375L] Vs. Ito, Ward-44(2), Kolkata.......................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 23, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.06.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order Dated 24Th June, 2024 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant In-Liminie Without Dealing With The Merits Of The Case & By Not Passing Speaking Order On The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Appellant Assessee Against The Impugned Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2021 Passed By The Ld. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (The Assessing Officer) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, In The Case Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2018-19. I.T.A. No.1462/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Subrata Das

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

said Company. 3. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in disallowing and adding back a sum of Rs. 70,40,000 /- under section 56(2)(x) on the grounds without appreciating that the provisions of 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 will not apply ... mother of the assessee and she is falling in the definition of relative as defined under the Act, therefore, the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act were not applicable to the said gift deed. 4.2 The ld. counsel, therefore, has submitted that the impugned additions made