“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)

Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 763/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 763/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata 5, Sree Charan Sarani Vs Bally Howrah – 711201 (West Bengal) [Pan : Aabcn7736Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dt. 23/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Issues Raised In Ground Nos. 2 To 4 Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Difference Between The Value Taken By The Assessee & The Fair Market Value (Fmv) U/S 50C Of The Act. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That During The Year, The Assessee Sold Two Flats For An Aggregate Consideration Of Rs.3,00,00,000/- & Accordingly Addition Of Rs.3,26,37,314/- Was Made To The Income Of The Assessee. In 2

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 250Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

value adopted by the assessee and FMV of the flats u/s 50C is within the range of ± 10% and, therefore, the provision of Section 56(2)(x)of the Act are not applicable which provides that where the market value of the property is more than the sale consideration received

Rajveer Singh, Meerut vs. DCIT Central Circle Gzbd, Meerut

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 21/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajveer Singh Vs. Dcit House No.4 Krishna Garden Central Circle Gzbd Ganga Nagar, Meerut, Uttar Meerut Pradesh -250001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Aayushi Gupta, Ca Ms. Airik Sihgh, Advocate Respondent By Sh.Prakash Nath Baranwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10/01/2024 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am:

Section 115BSection 234ASection 271Section 271ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 69

only if the assessee disputes the stamp duty value of the property. Thus, it is the plea of the assessee that invocation of section 56(2)(vii) is itself wrong. 7. On finding parity of facts respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of co-owners

ACIT Circle 16(1), Delhi vs. Kul Prakash Chandok, Delhi

In the result, we do not

ITA 1921/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 55(2)(aa)Section 56(2)(vii)

found that the assessee has sold only the original shares and not the bonus shares received by him. Invoking the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act . The AO computed the addition by taking FMV as under: Bonus Date Record date Qty. Rate Value (Rs.) Market ... Total 36,10,63,656 6.1 The addition was challenged before the CIT(A). It was vehemently contended that the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act not applied on bonus shares. The strong reliance was placed on various judicial decisions. After considering the facts

Nisha Gupta, Kolkata vs. ITO, Kolkata

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

ITA 379/KOL/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

duty and registration of documents the property was valued at Rs. 1,80,71,800/-. The AO after referring to the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act observed that where sale consideration of an immovable property is less than the stamp duty value ... 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

Simbhaoli Power Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT Central, Kanpur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 505/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Anshul Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Gupta, CIT- DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

listed company, which means that the assessee is a subsidiary of a company in which public are substantially interested. Therefore, provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) do not apply to the assessee. Therefore, all the apprehensions raised by the PCIT for assuming jurisdiction

Simbhaoli Power Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT Ghaziabad, New Delhi

ITA 4620/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Anshul Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Gupta, CIT- DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 69C

Rule 11U& 11UA. The excess premium, if any, was required to be added as "Income from other sources" as per provisions of section 56(2) (viib) of I.T. Act, 1961 but the A.O. failed to do so. iv) In the light of the observations made in aforesaid paras, facts & figures ... listed company, which means that the assessee is a subsidiary of a company in which public are substantially interested. Therefore, provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) do not apply to the assessee. Therefore, all the apprehensions raised by the PCIT for assuming jurisdiction

M/S. Dominant Sales and Service Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 677/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 56(2)(viib)Section 68

erred in doubting the value of share premium amount determined by the assessee company for issue of shares when neither the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) came into force from the assessment year under consideration nor the source of source as required under the amended provisions of section

Bito-Lagertechnik Bittmann Gmbh, Garmany vs. ACIT Circle 1(1)(2), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2440/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 197Section 234ASection 234BSection 270ASection 48Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

case and in law, Ld. AO/DRP has erred in charging income amounting to INR 12,18,33,600 to tax under Section 56(2)(x)(a) of the Act [without specifying the applicable sub-clause of Section 56(2)(x)] as: (a) the sum of money in the Appellant case ... such money has been admittedly received as consideration towards the sale of shares and therefore beyond the ambit of sub-clause (a) of Section 56(2)(x); and (b) the Appellant has admittedly not ‘received’ any immoveable property or ‘property’ as defined in the Explanation below Section 56(2

ITO Ward - 14(1), New Delhi vs. Kaka Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 5525/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: The Ld.

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 56(2)(viib)Section 68

share on shares issued during the period under reference is not justifiable and is unacceptable ITO vs. Kaka Services (P) Ltd. Section 56(2)(viib) read with Rule 11UA reads as under. "56(1)- (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section ... licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, Whichever is higher," 4.6 Keeping in view the provisions contained in section 56(2)(viib) read with Rule 11UA and the facts of the case, the valuation of the shares on the basis of book value

Sana Hospitality Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai

ITA 2946/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri K. ShivaramFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan

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

Rs.1,05,05,186/- u/s. 56(2)(x) made by the assessing officer for Property purchased in 2013 without appreciating the fact that section 56(2)(x) is applicable on or after 1 Day of April 2017. 4. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in law and is not justified ... assessed income of INR 2,57,24,176/- after making addition of INR 1,05,05,186/- under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A) 5. 2 against the Assessment Order, dated 24/05/2021, which was dismissed by the CIT(A) vide

Deep Malik, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 2(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 527/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Karan Kumra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 144C(15)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 270ASection 69

Kataria and the assessee. The gift received by certain relatives is not taxable in the hands of done as per provisions of the section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In view of the above, assessee has made investment

Mohammad Shahid Khan, Damoh vs. ITO Sagar Ward-1, Sagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 55/JAB/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Dec 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(x)

Revenue under the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the disputed property is purchased from relative therefore, the provision to section 56(2)(x) with explanation 56(2)(vii) is not applicable under the facts of the case. More over it not a capital asset being a rural ... under the facts and circumstances of the case and further submitted that the disputed property is purchased from relative, therefore, the provision of section 56(2)(x) with explanation 56(2)(vii) is not applicable under the facts of the case and the same is not a capital asset being

DCIT 3(2)92), Mumbai vs. M/S Pnp Martitime Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 668/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar a/wFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani and Shri H.M. Bhatt

Section 234BSection 250Section 274Section 36(1)(iii)Section 56(2)(viib)

issue arising in grounds no. 1 and 2, raised in Revenue’s appeal, pertains to the deletion of disallowance made under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 5. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee is engaged ... huge premium. Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee has not fulfilled any of the conditions laid down under the Explanation to section 56(2)(viib) of PNP Maritime Services Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.317/Mum./2020 ITA no.668/Mum./2020 the Act and disallowed an amount

Pnp Maritime Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 3 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 317/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar a/wFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani and Shri H.M. Bhatt

Section 234BSection 250Section 274Section 36(1)(iii)Section 56(2)(viib)

Idana Pet Industries P. Ltd., Udaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 330/JODH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur19 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250oSection 40A(2)(b)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

Rs.90/-) to the director and the son of director. The assessee was assessed u/s 143(3) and addition was confirmed for contravening section 56(2)(viib) r.w. Rule 11 UA of Income Tax Rule 1962 ( here in after Rule). The difference of amount of share premium with the NAV, calculated ... aggregate consideration received for such share was of Rs.19,02,500/- and share premium of Rs.1,71.22,500/-. The Assessing Officer as per section 56(2)(viib) held that aggregate consideration received for such share as exceeds the fair market value is to be treated income of the appellant under

Idana Pet Industries P. Ltd., Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 329/JODH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur19 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250oSection 40A(2)(b)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt Usha Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 3862/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

substitution of declared sales consideration by circle rate value in case of sale of property, analogues provision for purchase of property lies in section 56(2)(vi)/(vii). The section lays down that even if fair market value of a property exceeds circle rate, the purchase consideration in the case

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt Anju Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 3860/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt Anju Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 3859/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt Anju Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 3858/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A