← 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)

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

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 3831/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2023AY 2005-06

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. M/S. Satya Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 3826/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

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

ITO Ward - 14(1), New Delhi vs. Kv Global Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8689/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Delhi13 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Khare, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Kranti E. Khobragade, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

correct in deleting the addition of Rs.2,63,00,000/- made by the ld. AO under Section 56(2)(viib) on account of excess share premium recorded by the assessee. 2. Whether in the circumstances of the case and law, the ld. CIT(A) I.T.A. No.8689/Del/2019 2 is correct ... Fair Market Value (FMV) of the equity shares at a negative figure of Rs.1.11 crore. The AO accordingly invoked the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) and held that the share premium charged on issue of equity shares to KV Aromatics is in excess

M/S. Patel Copper Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 (1) (4), Rajkot

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 261/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. M/S. Patel Copper Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax Officer, A-76, Aashopalav Bunglows, Ward 2(1)(4), Nr. Satya Sai Hospital, Rajkot Rajkot-360005 Pan : Aagcp 6173 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 56(2)(viib)

facts as well as in law in confirming the addition of Rs.1,00,50,000/- made by the learned Assessing Officer under section 56(2)(viib) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2 M/s. Patel Copper Pvt Ltd Vs. ITO AY : 2013-14 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ... well as in law in enhancing the addition by Rs. 33,50,000/- thereby making total addition of Rs.1,34,00,000/- under section 56(2)(viib) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts as well as in law in confirming

DCIT, Central Circle-18, Delhi vs. Ms Delhivery Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

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

ITA 2176/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit Vs. Ms Delhivery Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle – 18 N-24-N34, S-24-S-34, Air Delhi Cargo Logistics Centre-Ii, Opposite Gate 6 Cargo Terminal Igi Airport, South West, New Delhi-110037 Pan No.Aapcs9575E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. T. James Singson, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. K. M. Gupta, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 06/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/12/2023 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Preferred Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-27, New Delhi Dated 08.05.2023 Pertaining To A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :- 1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Right In Not Sustaining The Disallowance Of Deduction Claimed On Account Of Employee

Section 37(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

case, the Ld, CIT(A) is right in deleting the addition of Rs. 62.72.719/- on account of undisclosed income as per provision of Section 56(2)(vii) of the IT Act r.w.r 11UA, even when the assessee company did not get valuation report of shares from merchant banker or failed ... claim of the assessee and concluded that the assessee did not get valuation of its shares from merchant banker as per provision of section 56 (2) (viib) of the Act r.w.r. 11 UA issuing shares to its employees during the year under consideration and completed the proceedings by holding that

Reconnect Energy Solution P Lt, Bengaluru vs. The DCIT 4(1) Indore, Indore

In the result, the appeal of assesse is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 182/IND/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoreconnect Energy Solution Ltd. Dcit 1(4) No.22, Vk Kalyani, 7Th Floor Indore Vs. Sankey Road, Bengaluru (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aafcr 0074 H Assessee By Shri Anil Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 06.12.2023

Section 40aSection 56Section 56(2)(viib)

date of conversion as per valuation report submitted by the assessee. Thus the AO has followed the process and provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act and the excess of the premium over and above the fair market value of the shares is required to be added ... premium; instead it is a question of whether the premium paid was over and above the FMV of the shares, in which case Section 56(2)(viib) needs Page 4 of 12 Reconnect Energy solution P. Ltd. Page 5 of 12 to be applied. It must be borne in mind

Ramesh Mannava, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as mentioned herein above

ITA 252/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam01 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 252/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Mr. Ramesh Mannava, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 5-60-213/1, Msr Cotton Ward-2(1), Corporation, 4/4 Ashok Nagar, Guntur. Guntur, Andhra Pradesh-522007. Pan: Agdpm 8289 Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

duty value and the sale consideration of the immovable property [Rs. 33,34,000 – Rs. 18,34,000] by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

Sanjib Sudhir Pradhan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 15(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 932/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Mrs. Rituja Pawar Deswal a/wFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chogule
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

assessee has also submitted that the gifts are received from the mother, wife, and other relatives which are covered under Explanation (e) to section 56(2)(vii) of the Act, and thus the same is not taxable. However, it is pertinent to note that as per section ... creditor, which the assessee has failed to prove in case of certain transactions as noted above. Accordingly, mere reliance on Explanation (e) to section 56(2)(vii) of the Act would not absolve the assessee from the onus cast on him under section 68 of the Act. As a result

Sanjib Sudhir Pradhan, Mumbai vs. ITO, 15(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1503/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Mrs. Rituja Pawar Deswal a/wFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chogule
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

assessee has also submitted that the gifts are received from the mother, wife, and other relatives which are covered under Explanation (e) to section 56(2)(vii) of the Act, and thus the same is not taxable. However, it is pertinent to note that as per section ... creditor, which the assessee has failed to prove in case of certain transactions as noted above. Accordingly, mere reliance on Explanation (e) to section 56(2)(vii) of the Act would not absolve the assessee from the onus cast on him under section 68 of the Act. As a result

Shri Bhupinder Singh ( Prop) the Nest Hotels & Motels, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Jalandhar

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

ITA 250/ASR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250oSection 56(2)(vii)

faceless too has erred in not appreciating the fact that the transferer and transferee both were real brothers and provisions of section 56(2)(vii) were not applicable to the facts of the case. 5 That in the case of S. Kuldip Singh (brother) who is transferor, whose case ... upheld U/s 56(2)(vii) of the Actand appeal is partly allowed. The assessee had challenged the application of section 56(2)(vii) in case of transaction between real brother. But the ground of the assesseeis dismissed. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before

Identity Wellness Centre Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle-12(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed ex parte

ITA 2097/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: BEFORE, SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA (Accountant Member)

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)

seen that the Assessing Officer disputed the ‘fair market value’ of share premium received on share subscription by taking recourse to section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. The assessee, in the course of the assessment, asserted that fair market value has been determined under Rule 11UA of the Income ... fair market value which was supported by valuation report. While the AO may possibly be right in making additions on the contour of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act in the given facts, such addition would not automatically lead to assumption of concealment alleged

Shri Abdul Gaffar Shaikh Chand, Akola vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 23/NAG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.23/Nag/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Abdul Gaffar Shaikh The Principal Chand, Vs Commissioner Of Mohammad Ali Road, Income Tax, Phulary Galli, Nagpur – 1. Akola - 440002. Pan: Avxps7253H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2023

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

Stamp Duty Valuation Authority was Rs.31,05,000/-. The Assessing Officer(AO) during scrutiny proceedings had not verified applicability of section 56(2)(vii). Assessing Officer has merely accepted the returned income vide order under section 143(3) dated 28.09.2017 for A.Y. 2015-16. The ld.Principal Commissioner of Income ... carried out any enquiry regarding purchase of the impugned property by the assessee. The assessment order is silent on the issue. The section 56(2)(vii) is reproduced here as under : “56. (1) Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from the total income under this

Fakhruddin T Malik, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 21(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 2642/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Joginder Singh, Sr. DR
Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). 3. Before the CIT(A) the assessee raised grounds stating that the addition under section 56(2)(vii) could have been made without referring the matter to the DVO at the request of the assessee. However the assessee neither appeared in person

ITO Ward - 23(1), New Delhi vs. Sharp Eye Broadcasting Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 1105/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia-

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

company stands at Rs.17.18 per share and consequently the excess consideration received on issue of equity shares is susceptible to tax under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 3.2 On being confronted, the assessee furnished a valuation report with effective date of valuation being 01.03.2016 wherein ... Officer thus questioned the authenticity of the projected figures and the genuineness of the valuation arrived. Having regard to intent and purpose of Section 56(2)(viib), the Assessing Officer held that the assessee has failed in the justification of the FMV so determined for the purposes of subscription

DCIT Central Circle 16 New Delhi, Delhi vs. Comptech Solutions Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1773/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

premium of Rs. 2990/- by the assessee to Contech, its holding company and asked the assessee to furnish note on applicability of section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) and valuation of share as per Rule 11UA of Income Tax Rules, 1961 (the “Rules ... assessee complied stating that section 56(2)(viib) r.w. Rule 11UA is not applicable backed by legal opinion of M/s. CNK & Associates LLP dated 30.3.2015 (summarised by the Ld. AO at page 2 of his order). 6. The contention of the assessee was not acceptable to the Ld. AO. According

Bharat Bhushan, Karnal Haryana vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karnal

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2715/DEL/2023[218-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2023

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 10(37)(i)Section 28

1750/Bang/2017 compensation and enhanced value of compensation is taxable as per the provisions of section 57(iv) read with sections 56(2)(viii) and 145A(b) of the Act under the head income from other sources. Being aggrieved by such order, the Assessee filed writ petition before Hon'ble Gujarat ... interest received by the ITA Nos. 1747 & 1750/Bang/2017 petitioner under section 28 of the Act of 1894 as income from other sources under section 56(2)(viii) read with section 145A(b) of the I.T. Act. In the opinion of this court, in the light of the law laid down

Ashwani Kumar, Gurugram vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Gurgaon

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1728/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.R Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 10(37)(i)Section 28

1750/Bang/2017 compensation and enhanced value of compensation is taxable as per the provisions of section 57(iv) read with sections 56(2)(viii) and 145A(b) of the Act under the head income from other sources. Being aggrieved by such order, the Assessee filed writ petition before Hon'ble Gujarat ... interest received by the ITA Nos. 1747 & 1750/Bang/2017 petitioner under section 28 of the Act of 1894 as income from other sources under section 56(2)(viii) read with section 145A(b) of the I.T. Act. In the opinion of this court, in the light of the law laid down

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Electrical & Electronics India Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 6923/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit Electrical & Electronics Central Circle-13 India Ltd. New Delhi Vs. Business Communication Centre, 21 Parsi Church Street, Opp. 18 Ezra Street, Kolkata West Bengal - 700001 Pan No.Aaace5419J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vivek Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Respondent By Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Advocate Sh. Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate Sh. Shailesh Gupta, Ca Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 10/11/2023 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Preferred Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-26, New Delhi Dated 27.08.2018 Pertaining To A.Y.2015-16. 2. The Grievance Of The Revenue Read As Under :- 1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Hon'Ble Cit(A) Is Erred In Deleting The Addition To Rs.5,63,34,120/- U/S 56(2)(Viia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Hon'Ble Cit(A) Is Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.16,06,000/-On Account Of Business Loss Incurred On Sales Of Shree Shaleen Taxtiles Ltd. 3. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Hon'Ble Cit(A) Is Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,59,777/-On Account Of Business Loss On The Valuation Of Shares Of M/S Cressanda Solution Ltd. 4. The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Erroneous & Not Tenable In Law & On Facts. 5. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter Or Amend Any/All Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or During The Course Of The Hearing Of The Appeal.

Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viia)

shares. Assessee furnished the necessary details and explained that it is a company in which public are substantially interested and, therefore, provisions of section 56(2) (viia) do not apply. 7. The AO examined the details furnished by the assessee in the light of the provisions of section 56(2 ... firm belief that the assessee is not a company in which public are substantially interested and applying the provisions of section 56(2) (viia). The AO made the addition of Rs.57372600/-. 8. Proceeding further the AO found that the assessee has claimed set off of loss in shares against income

Hasmukhbhai Kadvabhai Ramani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(3)(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 570/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.570/Srt/2023 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Hybrid) Hasmukhbia Kadvabhai Ramani Income Tax Officer, P.No.180 Shantivan Society, Nr. Ward-2(3)(2), Surat, Vs Jakat Naka, Sarthana Jakat Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Naka, Surat-395006 Gate, Surat-395001 Pan No: Ajjpr 0148 L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 10(27)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 28Section 34Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)

along with increased compensation is account of solatium on in the nature of capital receipt is not increased covered by Section 56(2)(viii) hence is compensation. not taxable to Income Tax. Interest received on increased compensation partake the character of capital receipt which is not taxable u/s 56(2

ITO, Ward-52(1), New Delhi vs. Arti Jindal, Delhi

ITA 1502/DEL/2021[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

till her lifetime, the transfer of shares to the Trust was nothing but an exercise to circumvent the provisions attracting taxation as per section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act in the hands of assessee. The assessee, being director of Glebe and having substantial shareholding d) (till transfer ... consideration to execute the assessee’s plan through usage of special purpose vehicles by circumventing the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, the so-called gift loose its character of gift but became an arrangement. The basis of such assertion gets fully