“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)

M/S. Riya Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur

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

ITA 108/RPR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss) A No. 01/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Riya Real Estates Private Limited 308, 3Rd Floor, Ceejay House, Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Mumbai (Mh)-400 018 Pan : Aadcr8769B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 153DSection 250Section 56(2)(viia)

grossly erred in confirming an addition of Rs.459,92,50,000/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act which is highly unjustified, unwarranted, unsustainable, not proper on facts, dehors any incriminating material or documents seized in the course of search ... investments in the aforementioned shares at the face value, whereas their apparent value was substantially higher, the A.O., in light of provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act, directed it to furnish details as regards the rate at which shares were allotted vis-à-vis. their Fair Market

Picture Time Digiplex Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-19(2), New Delhi

ITA 7056/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmam/S. Picture Time Digiplex Vs. Acit, Private Limited Circle-19(2), B-19, Defence Colony, New Delhi South Delhi, New Delhi Pan: Aaicp2250Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

raised one ground that the CBDT Circular dated 24.05.2019 is applicable upon the assessee and assessee is eligible for exemption from applicability of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 5. As we take into consideration para 4.1 of the order of Ld. CIT(A) it comes up that ... with regard to notifications issued by CBDT of exemptioin given from applicability of provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, assessee had claimed that subsequent to the assessment order dated 24.12.2018 intimation is received on 24.05.2019 from CBDT exempting appellant company from applicability of provisions of Section 56

Shri Bhadresh Ramniklal Nagda, Jamnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1), Jamnagar

In the result, ground number 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/RJT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 56

rival submission of both the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. We find that the ld.AO made addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) by taking view that a plain reading of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) made it clear that Sub-section and clause ... assessee that land purchased by the assessee is agricultural land falls within the exemption of capital asset under section 2(14) and section 56(2)(vii)(b) is not applicable, was not accepted by holding that he has already taken a contrary view in appeal no.CAS3 334/16-17 dated

Rekha Singh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 29(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2406/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhrekha Singh Vs. Ito 29(3)(2) F 1103, Sai Radha 307, 3Rd Floor, C-10, Complex, Lbs Marg, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Bhandup (W), Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai-400078 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Auxps8355F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh IyerFor Respondent: Shri. Ajay Singh

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

2 AY 2015-16 Rekha Singh 2. The Ld. CIT(Appeals ((NFAC) has erred in denying the benefit of Section 56(2)(vii) (b) by stating that Letter of Allotment is not a registered sale deed and thus cannot be considered as date of agreement. 3. The Ld. CIT(Appeals ... property, therefore, the AO was of the P a g e | 3 AY 2015-16 Rekha Singh view that provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the IT Act to be applied. On query the assessee explained that as per the proviso to section 56(2

Breezefresh Dairy and Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 5(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2151/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT-DR

Section 56(2)(viib)

share, as per the Discounted Cash Flow Method. However, shares were allotted @ Rs. 2/- per share. 7. Invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) r.w.s 2(24)(xvi) of the Act and Rule 11UA(2) of the Rules, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to justify the share premium ... should not be treated as income within the provisions of the Act. 8. The assessee filed detailed reply justifying the non- applicability of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. Point-wise reply of the assessee is as under: Sl. Information required Remarks No. to be furnished 9. Detailed submissions

Jajoo Hygiene P Ltd, Indore vs. The ACIT/DCIT 2(1), Indore

ITA 161/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Jajoo Hygiene Pvt. Acit/Dcit, Ltd., 2(1), 304-A, Indore. बनाम/ Subhlabh Residency, Khajrana Chouraha, Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aadcj 0657 Q Assessee By Shri Prakash Gupta, Ca & Shri Shashank Sharma, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.10.2023

Section 143(3)Section 288BSection 50CSection 56Section 56(2)(viib)

That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that shares are issued in compliance with the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib)of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the issue price does not vary from FMV materially. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred ... considering the fact that the valuation is an estimation and provisions of section 56(2)(viib) are not violated only because of rounding off done for practical purposes.” 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length and case- records perused. 3. The assessee is a company which issued

Poonam Dhavalkumar Shah, Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT/ACIT/JCIT/ITO -NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2220/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar SutharFor Respondent: MS Smitha V. Nair

Section 250Section 50C(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

submitted a letter dated 27.11.2014, cannot be considered as the date of execution of agreement by any stretch of imagination. The proviso to section 56(2)(x) clearly states that where the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration and the date of registration are not same, the stamp ... registered, the transfer will take place on the date of execution of documents and not on the date of registration of documents. Section 56(2)(x) clearly stipulates that where any immovable property is received for a consideration which is less than the stamp duty value of the property

Shree Sita Pulses Pvt. Ltd., Durg vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 217/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 217/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shree Sita Pulses Private Limited Sita Group, Behind District Court, Millpara, Durg (C.G.) Pan : Aascs8895E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

assessee company was selected for limited scrutiny for verifying the 3 Shree Sita Pulses Private Limited Vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai applicability of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act as regards the “large share premium” received during the year under consideration. 3. During the assessment proceedings, it was observed ... found that the assessee had claimed on excessive side Rs.48,75,920; thus working out to disallowance of Rs. 38,31,080 under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 5.3.(ii). The appellant submitted that :" In this regard, necessary explanation has already been submitted vide para

Chandhok Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 200/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 200/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Chandhok Cold Storage Private Limited Ph No.100/28, Bilaspur Road, Ravigram S.O, Raipur-492 001 Pan : Aadcc8354P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 224Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

valuation of net worth as per Audited Financial Statements as on 31.03.2012. Whereas, shares were allotted on 30.03.2013. As per the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act 1961,:- (u) the fair market value of the shares shall be the value— (i) as may be determined ... share. The reply of the assessee has been considered, however, it is not acceptable as no such exception has been carved out in Section 56(2)(viib). The onus was on the assessee company to justify that the issue price is not exceeding the fair market value of shares, however

Anwar Hussain Khan, Bulandshahr vs. ACIT, Circle, Bulandshahr

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 2955/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Shri Chandra Mohan Gargshri Anwar Hussain Khan Vs. Acit S/O. Shri Maqshood Circle Hussain, C/O. Royal Gas Bulandshahr Services, G.T. Road Khurja, Bulandshahr Pan No. Aamph 9619 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv. Revenue By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.10.2023

Section 56(2)(vii)

part of the closing stock, then the same would not fall in the ambit of the property as defined in explanation to section 56(2)(vii) of the Act and consequently the said provisions will not be applicable in the case of the assessee. 3. The Learned Counsel further drawing ... Counsel finally submitted that the AO was not justified in making additions in the hands of the assessee by invoking inapplicable provision of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act and Learned CIT(A) was also not justified in upholding the same. The Learned Counsel thus submitted that the addition

M/S. Cybele Paradise Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir-6(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1329/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Cybele Paradise Pvt. Ltd. 111, Industrial Area, Sion Circle, Beside Croma Showroom, Sion East, Mumbai-400022 Pan: Aaccc7098K ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit Circle 6(1)(1), 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chaturvedi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt, Ld. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)Section 68

Cybele Paradise Pvt. Ltd. 5. It is pertinent to mention here that specific section to deal with the issue of share premium, i.e., section 56(2) (viib) of the Act introduced in the statute w.e.f. from Finance Act, 2012, w.e.f. A.Y. 2013-14 and relevant rules for valuation of share

Osianama Learning Experience Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 3 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6796/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)Section 59

addition of Rs.59,14,750/-. 8. On the other hand, ld. DR submitted that there is no scope of giving any interpretation to Section 56(2)(viib) by looking from the angle whether there is any tax evasion or not? The language of the Section is very clear and once ... which has been brought by way of allotment of shares at a higher premium. He strongly relied upon the intention behind introduction of Section 56(2)(viib) and the Hon’ble Finance Minister speech that it was anti-tax avoidance measure and to take unexplained money on investment and therefore

Asst CIT 6 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Chiripal Poly Films Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 258/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Selvamani

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by Assessing Officer under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act without appreciating that facts that the AO had interfered with the tax payers statutory right under rule 11UA(2 ... facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by Assessing Officer under section 56(2)(viib) of the act without appreciating the facts that the matter of taxability cannot be decided on the basis of entries which the assessee

ITO, Ward, Phalodi vs. M/S Rama Allure LLP, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 135/JODH/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: The Date, The Appeal Is Finally Heard.”

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

gift to father or as a loan to father – both the transactions fulfill the requirements of respective sections for not being invoked – section 56(2)(x) r.w. 56(2)(vii) and section 68. Therefore, it will be incorrect to see the transaction of taking funds from Arpit Khandelwal from susceptible ... gift to father or as a loan to father – both the transactions fulfill the requirements of respective sections for not being invoked – section 56(2)(x) r.w. 56(2)(vii) and section 68. Therefore, it will be incorrect to see the 45 ITO vs. Ms Rama Allure LLP transaction

ACIT Circle-15(2), New Delhi vs. Lifestyle Probuild Pvt Ltd, Ghaziabad

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3552/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: AO; that valuation report dated 15.03.2012 prepared by the Chartered Accountant as per rule 11UA

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Jyoti Verma, Sr. DR

Section 56(2)(viib)

does not arise. 6.23 The Ld. AR further submitted that in the memorandum explaining the provisions of Finance Bill, 2012, the amendment to section 56(2) by insertion of a sub-clause (viib), was classified under the heading "Measures to Prevent Generation and Circulation of Unaccounted Money". Therefore, this section ... that ld. CIT (A) has passed a very reasonable and elaborate order. Furthermore, we find it appropriate to refer to the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and Rule 11UA as under :- 9 ITA No.3552/Del./2019 “Section 56(2) provides for addition in certain cases

The DCIT, Circle-2(1), Thrissur vs. Sri.K.P. Johny, Thrissur

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate (with Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv. with him)For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 147Section 148(1)Section 69

their sale, and at a profit of 700% of cost; 9.8 Reference, at this stage is drawn to section 56(2)(vii) of the Act, which reads as under in its relevant part: - “56. (1) Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from …………. (2) In particular ... reduction of Rs.70.50 lakhs separately assessed u/s.69 of the Act, i.e., while assessing income u/s. 45 or, as the case may be, section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act; OR alternatively, no separate addition for rs. 70.50 lacs u/s. 69 is called for. (e) The assessee shall also explain

Sri.K.P. Johny, Thrissur vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1), Thrissur

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 206/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate (with Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv. with him)For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 147Section 148(1)Section 69

Dilip Talakshi Vora, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax-20, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1613/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdilip Talakshi Vora Vs. Principal Commissioner 3102, Spring Mills, Island Of Income Tax-20, City Centre, G.D. Room No. 418, 4 Th Floor, Ambekar Marg Near Piramal Chambers, Wadala Telephone Lal Baug, Parel, Exchange, Dadar (East) Mumbai - 400012 Mumbai – 400014 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabpv0804C Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Paresh Shaparia Respondent By : Riddhi Mishra Date Of Hearing 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 05.10.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit(A), Mumbai-20, Dated 24.03.2023 For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “I. Order Passed U/S 263 Is Bad In Law: 1. The Ld. Pr.Cit Erred On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case In Passing The Order U/S 263 Which Is Bad In Law. 2. The Ld Pr.Cit Erred In Passing The Order U/S 263 By Setting Aside Ao'S Order & Directing To Inquire Into The Claim Both In Terms Of Section 56(2)(X) & Section 43Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Ld Pr. Cit Erred In Treating The Order Passed By Ao. U/S 143(3) As Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue In Relation To Purchase Of Property I.E Flat No. E-601 At Ambe Shraddha Kamothe In Panvel (Herein Referred As Said Flat) For Applicability Of Section 56(2)(X) & Section 43Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: Riddhi Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43CSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

passing the order u/s 263 by setting aside AO's order and directing to inquire into the claim both in terms of section 56(2)(x) and section 43CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Ld Pr. CIT erred in treating the order passed ... purchase of property i.e Flat no. E-601 at Ambe Shraddha Kamothe in Panvel (herein referred as said flat) for applicability of Section 56(2)(x) and section 43CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 P a g e | 2 Dilip Talakshi Vora Vs. Pr.CIT-20 4. The Ld Pr.CIT

Rakeshbhai Gemabhai Oad, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(5), Surat

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

ITA 510/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.510/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Rakeshbhai Gemabhai Oad, Vs. The Ito, 9, Purshottam Nagar Society, Ward-2(3)(5), Opp. Jalaram Petrol Pump, Amroli, Surat Surat – 394107, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaepo2316D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Bipin Jariwala, Advocate Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29/09/2023

Section 143(3)Section 50C(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

passed ex parte order. The Ld. Counsel also contended that the issue involved in assessee’s case was relating to the Provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act wherein the Assessing Officer has made the addition on account of difference between registered value and the value ... section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel contended that Assessing Officer has not made reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer for determining the value of the property afresh, therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that matter may be remitted back to the file the Assessing Officer for fresh

Jarul Glasswork Private Limited, Haryana vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Faridabad

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

ITA 83/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Ms. Sumangla Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(2)Section 251(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

income of appellant u/s 251(1) of the Act by Rs. 64,00,000/- under the head income from other sources by applying section 56(2)(viib) of the Act on protective basis and rejecting the valuation report furnished under Rule 11UA(2)(b) of Income Tax Rules ... first appellate order as well. The whole enhancement proceeding is thus null and void at the threshold. (iv) the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) has been invoked in the first appellate proceedings along with Section 68 of the Act. As against Section 68 invoked by the Assessing Officer