← 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)

Shri. Naagesh Kanaiyalal Thakkar, Dharawad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hubli

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

ITA 550/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeynagesh Kanaiyalal Thakkar The Income Tax Officer Lovely Sweets, Baradan Saal Ward - 2(1), Hubli Hubli Sarafkatta S.O. Vs. Hubli 580020 Pan – Aaupt7785P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vinay K. Kulkarni, Ca Revenue By: Shri Guru Kumar S. Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1060678544(1) Dated 08.02.2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Confirmed The Additions Made Under Section 56(2)(Vii) Which Is Against The Facts. 2. The Addition Confirmed Is Against The Provisions Of The Income Tax Act 3. The Beneficial Provision Is Read In A Too Rigid Way So As To Deny The Benefit Conferred By The Income Tax Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vinay K. Kulkarni, CAFor Respondent: Shri Guru Kumar S. Addl CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(Vii)Section 56(2)(vii)

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. The learned commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the additions made under section 56(2)(Vii) which is against the facts. 2. The addition confirmed is against the provisions of the Income Tax Act 3. The beneficial provision ... payment made on 11.05.2009 was more than 9 months after the date of agreement. In view of clear provisions of second proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) that "first proviso shall apply only in a case where the amount of consideration referred to therein, or a part thereof

Basabdutta Dutta., Bankura vs. ITO, Ward- 3(1), Kenduadihi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 868/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.868/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Basabdutta Dutta…………………..……………………....………....Appellant Kayasthapara, P.O+Dist – Bankura, Pin-722101. [Pan: Adtpd8748C] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Bankura….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate & D.K. Sen, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sallong Yaden, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 11, 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 06.07.2023 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. For That The Ld. Cit(A)(Nfac) In Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Erred In Confirming Disallowance On Account Of Exemption Of Rs.1,65,52,344.00 Claimed U/S 54F On Return Of Income. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A)(Nfac) In Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Is Not Justified To Confirm Addition Of Rs.7,38,588.00 Made U/S 56(2)(Vii) 3. For That The Appellant Reserves His Right To Add To, To Alter, To Amend The Grounds & To Adduce Paper & Document At The Time Of Hearing.”

Section 250Section 54FSection 56(2)(VII)

estimated the market value of the property at Rs.2,22,38,588/-. The Assessing Officer thus added Rs.7,38,588/- invoking provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 8. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions so made by the Assessing Officer. 9. The ld. counsel ... transfer deed as compared to the value determined by the DVO was less than 5%. He further referred to the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act r.w.s 50C of the Act and submitted that as per the 3rd Proviso to section 50C as inserted

Adm Agro Industries Kota & Akola Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 51/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roym/S. Adm Agro Industries Kota & Vs. Dcit, Circle 1 (1), Akola Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Third Floor, Vatika Professional Point, Golf Course Extension Road, Sector – 66, Gurgaon – 122 018 (Haryana). (Pan : Aabcs9646L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate Shri Utkarsh Kr. Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Amisha Gupt, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Order : 10.07.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-I, New Delhi Dated 05.11.2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That, In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer ('Ao') Dated 30.12.2017 U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act,1961 ('The Act'), As Upheld By Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ('Cit(A)') Dated 05.11.2019 & Also The Additions

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

they need to issue shares to their shareholders. 10. That the AO/CIT(A) have both failed to appreciate that the true objective of Section 56(2)(viib) is to prevent conversion! circulation of unaccounted money, and hence in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the transaction ... Appellant is not covered by Section 56(2)( viib) of the Act. 11. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in rejecting application for admission of additional evidence u/ Rule 46A moved by the Appellant, which contained