“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)

Aero Pack Products Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the manner indicated above

ITA 6697/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

Aero Pack Products Private Limited 2. The solitary grievance of the assessee is directed against the adjustment of ₹52,52,000/- made under section 56(2)(x) of the Act by the Centralised Processing Centre, Bengaluru, while processing the return under section 143(1). The assessee contends that the said ... while processing the return, treated the difference between the stated consideration and the stamp duty value as income under section 56(2)(x) and made an adjustment of ₹52,52,000/-. 4. In appellate proceedings, the learned first appellate authority, acknowledging the assessee’s objection to the stamp duty valuation

Kundan Jayantilal Bhatt, Mumbai vs. ITO, Circle 4, Thane

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

ITA 6522/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarkundan Jayantilal Bhatt Ito Cirlce-4, 277, Kundan Bunglow Room No. 2, Ashar Behind Yashwant Heights, Vs. It Park, 6Th Floor, Opp. Vidyavihar School, Road No. 16Z, Virar (West), Shivansai, Wagle Industrial Thane, Maharashtra – Estate, Thane, 401 303 Maharashtra- 400604 Pan/Gir No. Adjpb4878K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ravi Gupta, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

Section 142ASection 142A(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 56(2)(vii)

stamp duty value and the purchase consideration worked out to Rs. 81,06,000/-. 4. The Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and issued show cause notice dated 12.12.2018 proposing to treat the difference amount of Rs. 81,06,000/- as income ... under section 143(3) read with section 142A of the Act, dated 21.08.2019, and made an addition of Rs. 81,06,000/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The total assessed income was determined at Rs. 1,11,16,680/-.Penalty proceedings under section 274 read with

Devanand Amarnath Parkar, Jogeshwari East, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 41(4)(1), Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc, Bandra East

ITA 6462/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 56(2)(viib)

making an addition of Rs.5,72,886/- on account of the difference between the stamp duty valuation and the actual purchase consideration under section 56(2)(viib) of the Income-tax Act, without properly appreciating and considering the independent valuation report submitted by the appellant. The addition so made

Naresh Kumar Morya, Narela vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 61(1), Civic Centre

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2292/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhannaresh Kumar Morya, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Rajiv Colony, Narela, Ward-61(1), New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ahupm7348A

For Appellant: Shri H. S. Hooda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the learned CITA was justified in confirming the addition made under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act on account of differential Naresh Kumar Morya consideration of immovable property in the facts and circumstances of the instant ... learned AO recorded reasons that a sum of Rs. 3,32,960 being the differential consideration had escaped assessment in terms of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and issued notice under Section 148 of the Act on 29-07-2022 after taking approval from the competent authority

Mr Akil Abbas Rassai, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7622/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarmr. Akil Abbas Rassai Dcit Cirlce-22(1), 144 Gulistan, S. V. Road Piramal Chambers, Khar West, Mumbai - Vs. Lalbaug, Mumbai- 400 052 400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aacpr1058F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Vinita Shah, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026

Section 270ASection 56(2)(x)

been confirmed. 2. The penalty in question has been levied in respect of an addition of Rs.82,35,500/- made under section 56(2)(x) of the Act. 2 Mr. Akil Abbas Rassai At the very outset, the learned counsel for the assessee brought to our notice that the very ... foundation of the penalty proceedings, namely, the quantum addition under section 56(2)(x), no longer survives in its present form. It was submitted that this Tribunal, vide its order dated 02.12.2025, has set aside the said quantum addition and restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer

K. G. Finvest Private Limited, East Delhi vs. Central Circle 29, Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4330/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2015-16] K.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd. Vs Central Circle-29, F-24 F/Floor, I.Sc Pankaj Delhi Central Market, Mandawali Fazalpur, Nr Natraj Vihar Society, I.P. Extn., New Delhi- 110092. Pan-Aaack4032H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sudesh Garg, Adv. & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Respondent By Shri Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29 .01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.06.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-30, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-5/10256/2017-18 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Company Has Filed Its Return Of Income On 28.09.2015, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 5,09,130/-. The Case Was Selected Under Limited Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Followed By Statutory Notices Issued U/S 142(1) Were Issued From Time To Time. In Response, Assessee Filed Submissions & Relevant Details Alongwith Evidences. The Ao Observed That The Assessee Issued 8,40,000 Equity Shares Of Inr 10/- Each At A Premium Of Inr 490/- Each & The Valuation Of Shares Was Done By Following Dcf Method. However, The Ao Rejected The Method Of Valuation Of Share Adopted By The Assessee & Re-Computed The Value Per Share At Inr 50.35 Per Share As Per Nav Method & Made Addition Of Differential Amount Of Inr 37,77,06,000/- U/S 56(2)(Viib) Of The Act.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

differential amount of INR 449.65 per share is the income of the assessee. Ld.AR submits that AO has invoked the provision of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act which is reproduced as under:- 56. (1) “Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from the total income ... clause (c) of (Explanation) to clause (23FB) of section 10.” 7. Ld.AR drew our attention to the Explanation to clause (viib) of sub-section 56(2) of the Act according to which the market value of the unquoted equity shares shall be the value as determined in accordance with such

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Gaurav Dalmia, Delhi

In the result, additional ground 1 under Rule 27 of the assessee is

ITA 4162/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69A

valuation in respect of transfer of shares. However DCF method of valuation cannot be applied in respect of transfer of shares as per section 56(2)(viia) of the Income Tax Act. vii) In view of the above i.e. based on reading of provisions of the Section 56(2)(viia ... addition can only be made on the basis of incriminating material and not on the basis of estimated difference in valuation under section 56(2)(viia). Reliance is placed in this regard on the following judicial ruling: (Emphasis supplied) - a) PCIT vs Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. (SC) reported

Mahender Malik, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward -(1), Hisar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5586/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Sh. Mahender Malik, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 388, Satroad Khurad, Near Ward-1, Adarsh High School, Hisar Hisar Pan: Bitpm5341N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Karishma Rathore, Adv. Sh. Mayank Patawari, Adv. Department By Sh. Yogeshwar Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The “Cit(A)/Nfac”], Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069269047(1), Dated 30.09.2024 Involving Proceedings Under Section 154 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. For The Reasons Stated In The Assessee’S Condonation Averments, Delay Of 3 Days In Filing Of The Instant Appeal Is Condoned In Light Of Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 Itr 471 (Sc). 3. It Emerges During The Course Of Hearing That The Sole Substantive Issue Between The Parties Is That Of Correctness Of The Learned Lower Authorities’ Action Assessing The Assessee’S Interest Component Of Land Acquisition Compensation U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, While Invoking Section 57(Iv) R.W.S. 56(1)(A) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The Act. 4. Learned Sr. Dr Representing The Department Vehemently Argued That The Instant Issue Is No More Res Integra In Light Of Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Cbdt (2020) 423 Itr 13 (P&H) As Well As Pcit Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi Huf (2024) 161 Taxmann.Com 301 (Del.) Wherein The Department Has Succeeded Before Their Lordships That The Impugned Interest Component Ought To Be Assessed As Income From “Other” Sources Only.

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

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 ... short reasoning, the same would not amount to binding precedent. 6.7 The Ld. AR elaborated that the insertion of section 145A, section 145B, section 56(2)(viii) and section 57(iv) by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 01.04.2010 does not change the character of interest under section

V S Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-3(5), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2633/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 234DSection 250Section 270ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

account of shares of various companies settled/ contributed to the Appellant as ‘Income from other sources’ under section 56(2)(x) of the IT Act. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC ought to have appreciated that at the time ... Trust were only ‘Relatives’ within the definition of the term under proviso I to sec 56(2)(x) read with Explanation (e) to section 56(2)(vii) and hence the transfer is exempt by the virtue of the Explanation. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Rashmi Seventilal Vakharia, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3801/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2018-19 Rashmi Seventilal Vakharia, Income Tax Officer, C-21, Malad Gaurav Co-Op. Ward-41(3)(3), Housing Society, Vs. Mumbai. Dahyabhai Patel Road, Hajibapu, Malad East, Mumbai-400097. Pan : Adgpv4261R (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Sunil Maloo (Virtually Present) For Revenue : Shri Annavaran Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 21-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-01-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Sunil MalooFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

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

amount of Rs. 3,17,30,016/- being the difference of stamp duty value over the purchase consideration, invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The assessee thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has since confirmed the order and findings ... assessee is in appeal before us. 3. One of the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee relates to erroneous application of section 56(2)(x) of the Act by the Assessing officer without reference to DVO in spite of objection raised by the assessee and sustenance of said action

Vikas Agarwal, Sambhal vs. Income Tax Officer, Sambhal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6268/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Saim, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

NFAC/2013-14/10126979. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of Appeal: “1. That the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in applying Section 56(2)(vii)(b) to rural agricultural land which is excluded from ‘capital asset’ u/s 2(14)(iii). 1 | P a g e 6268_DEL_2025_Vikas Aggarwal ... investment of Rs. 8,15,340/- was unexplained since no return had been filed and provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) were also applicable, a notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2021. The assessee filed return on 28.05.2021, declaring income of Rs. 4,96,270/- . While source of investment

Mamta Gourav Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 20(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7345/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 147Section 270ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

accordingly held that the assessee has received an immoveable property without consideration and the same was brought to tax, 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 since dismissed the appeal ... developed cases and is therefore, not a gratuitous transfer. Further, it was submitted that the AO has erred in invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, which was replaced with Section 56(2)(x) of the Act w.e.f. AY. 2018-19. It was accordingly submitted

Mamta Gourav Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 20(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 7344/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 147Section 270ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

ITO Ward - 20(3), New Delhi vs. Quetzal Exim Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department of Revenue is allowed

ITA 717/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 56Section 56(2)

Rules, 1962.” 5. Learned Departmental Representative submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition of Rs.14,25,48,000/- under Section under Section 56(2) of the ITA No. 717/Del/ 2020 Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs.14,25,48,000/- on account of share allotment in excess of fair

Mahendra Manshi Nagda, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeal), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7336/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2018-19 Mahendra Manshi Nagda, Income Tax Officer, 202, Kanan Building, Ward-20(1)(1), Seth Motishaw Lane, Vs. Piramal Chamber, Mumbai-400010. Mumbai-400012. Pan : Aahpn5436C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Sameer Dalal For Revenue : Shri Annavaran Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 20-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-01-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Sameer DalalFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 56(2)(x)

agreement value and market value amounting to Rs. 27,19,804/- was brought to tax by the AO, invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. 4. It was further submitted that during the appellate proceedings, submission was made by the assessee, reiterating the above facts

Manisha Devnani, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward2(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is rejected as non

ITA 344/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Varis Isani (Virtually appeared)For Respondent: 19/01/2026

Section 115BSection 144C(3)Section 147Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

Assessing Officer has erred in law in applying the 5. The Lrd. Assessing Officer has erred in law in applying the provision of section 56(2)(x) for differential value between the section 56(2)(x) for differential value between the purchase price and stamp duty value ... executed by payment by the the entire transection and is not executed by payment by the appellant.. Therefore, applying provision of section 56(2)(x) & appellant.. Therefore, applying provision of section 56(2)(x) & appellant.. Therefore, applying provision of section 56(2)(x) & 115BBE is high 115BBE

Subhash Suryakant Phadkar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 35(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed in above terms

ITA 3490/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am Mr. Subhash Suryakant Phadkar, Income Tax Officer, B-184, Kalpataru Sparkle, Bandra East, Ward 35(3)(4), Vs. Mumbai- 400051 Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai- 400051 Pan No.Aaapp3456H (Appellant) (Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Mayur Makadia, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha P. Kaushik, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54Section 54E

payment of Rs.53.50 lakhs to each member of the society. The Revenue held the receipt to be income from other sources as per section 56(2)(vii)(a) of the Act, where any sum of money received exceeding Rs.50,000/- without consideration is chargeable as “income from other sources

Kanchan Rawal, Delhi vs. ITO NFAC Ward - 36 (1), New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 9010/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 147Section 56(2)(x)

Assessing Officer had duly accepted the same at page-8 of the assessment order dated 16.04.2024. Deleted accordingly. 3. Next comes the second section 56(2)(x) addition of Rs.18,17,700/- made in assessee’s hands in both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings. 4. There is no dispute

DCIT, CC-1(4), Kolkata vs. Jupiter International Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1678/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata ………….……………………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Jupiter International Limited..……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Unnayanam, 20A, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue, Kol-19.. [Pan: Aaacj6956B] Appearances By: Shri P. N Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Nandini Sureka, Advocate, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 197 Days & The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Going Over The Said Petition, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind The Delay & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

making following disallowances or additions:- 1. Additions under section 14A of the Act amounting to Rs. 4,78,76,015. 2. Additions under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act amounting to Rs. 3,29,48,640. 3. Additions on account of Provision for Interest on Unsecured Loan amounting ... which it has been held that revaluation reserve cannot be excluded while computing FMV of shares for the purpose of section 56(2) (viib) of the Act. The ld. also submits that when an asset is sold, any losses are first deducted from the Revaluation Reserve and if there

Anupam Guha, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer 25(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1665/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2020-21 Anupam Guha….…………..……..……….………….……….……….……Appellant 5/17 Regent Park, Kol- 700040.. [Pan: Agjpg0760G] Vs. Ito, Ward-25(1), Kolkata…………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manoj Kumar Patil, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2024 Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020–21. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 174 Days & The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay. After Going Over The Said Affidavit, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind The Delay & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 250Section 56(2)(x)

making addition of Rs.99,29,179/- on account of difference between stamp duty value and purchase value by invoking provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. 3. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing an ex parte order ... without considering the fact that the said land was stock in trade and was not covered in definition of property referred to in section 56(2)(x) and also the Ld. CIT(A) did not refer the case to the Departmental Valuation Officer to analyse the actual difference between