“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)

Bhawna Bafna, Jagdalpur, Bastar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Jagdalpur, Bastar

ITA 250/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Bhawna Bafna Vs The Income Tax Officer C/O. Shri Rekhchand Bafna, Jagdalpur Gurudwara Road, Moti Talab Para, Chhattisgarh-494 001 Pan: Amipb4641C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

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

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

facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.8,19,725/- made by AO invoking section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) The addition made by AO and sustained by Ld. CIT (A) is arbitrary, baseless and not justified. 2. In the facts circumstances

Rajeshbhai P . Mangukiya, Surat vs. PCIT-1, Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal No

ITA 341/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.333 & 341/Srt/2023 (Ays 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Nayan Dhanjibhai Mangukiya 14, Rugved Bungalows, L P Savani Road, Adajan, Surat-395 009 Principal Commissioner Of [Pan Alppm 6978 B] Income-Tax-1, Surat, Aaykar Vs Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- Rajesh Parsottambhai Mangukiya 395001 15, Rugved Bungalows, L P Savani Road, Adajan, Surat-395009 [Pan Ahopp 2114 P] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)(x)

That on facts and merits of the case and in law the learned PCIT- 1,Surat has erred in misinterpreting the provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Act and proviso thereto. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, substitute, modify the above ground ... having 7% share in the immovable property. The Stamp Valuation Authority valued the said immovable property at Rs.19.48 crores thereby attracting provision of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The Ld. PCIT further noted initially four person made agreement to sale with seller on 30.08.2010 and paid part payment

Nayan Dhanjibhai Mangukiya, Surat vs. PCIT-1, Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal No

ITA 333/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)(x)

Shri Ravi Ramakrishnan, Mumbai vs. International Tax Ward 4(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid directions

ITA 646/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.646/मुं/2023 (िन.व.2014-15) Ravi Ramakrishnan, 205/404, Khar Rose Minar Building, 4Th Floor, 10Th Road, Khar (West, Mumbai 400 052 Pan: Anwpr-2793-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. International Tax Ward 4(1)(1), Room No.1729, 17Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Anushree Gupta "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Anil Sant सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/09/2023 आदेश आदेश/ Order आदेश आदेश Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 10/01/2023 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short ‘The Act], For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds In Appeal: “ The Following Grounds Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In The Law, The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer ('Ld. Ao') Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) / Directions Passed By The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp') Under 2 Section 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act1) Is Bad, Both In The Eye Of Law & On The Facts On Account Of:

For Appellant: Ms. Anushree GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant

Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

erred in confirming the variation proposed by the Ld. AO amounting to Rs.45,62,270 under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act as income from other sources and has also erred in invoking the amended provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act for years

Hitesh Jayesh Dhakan, Mumbai vs. Additional /Joint/Deputy/Assistaant Comm. of Income Tax/ITO/NFAC, Mumbai

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

ITA 1846/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhhitesh Jayesh Dhakan Vs. Ito, Nfac, New Delhi 202, Hill View, 110001 Padmanagar-1, Link Road, Shimpoli, Chikuwadi, Borivali (West), Mumbai – 400092 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Cljpd6491C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Prakash Kishinchandani

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 55ASection 56(2)

referred as CIT(A)] erred in confirming the action of the AO in making the addition of Rs. 3,97,250/- by invoking section 56(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). 2. The CII(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in not making reference

Clearmedi Healthcare Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 6(1), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed for

ITA 2221/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

discrimination clause existing in Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement signed between India & UK and India & Italy. The assessee further submitted that section 56(2)(viib) of the Act became applicable on the amounts which were received after 01.04.2012. The allotment of shares on 18.04.2012 was related to the amounts received ... Hence, the assessee argued that provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the IT Act are not applicable on the issue of shares on 18.04.2012. The assessee also submitted that the validity of the valuation report was for whole of the Financial Year 2012-13 as stated in the valuation

Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Raipur vs. Aviral Finance Private Limited, Raipur

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

ITA 13/RPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.13/Rpr/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Ito-4(1) Aviral Finance Pvt. Ltd. Raipur Ground Floor, Nalghar Chowk, Raipur – 492 001 [Pan: Aabcg 2701 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By Shri Praveen Khandelwal & Shri Praveen Goyal, Cas ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.07.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2023

For Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 68

case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny for the reason that large Share premium received during the year (verify applicability of Section 56(2)(viib) or any other relevant section). During the course of assessment proceedings, Learned AO observed that assessee has issued Rs.1,92,400/- Shares having face

Shyam Sunder Bhaeti, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Jodhpur

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 57/JODH/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 (Through Virtual Mode) Late Sh. Shyam Sunder Bhaeti, Versus Income-Tax Officer, Through L/H. Ram Kishore Bhaeti Ward-1(4),Jodhpur. 122 C, Krishna Mandir Road, Subhash Chowk, Ratanada, Jodhpur. Pan: Aiopb9503H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Divya Phophalia, C.A. Revenue By : Sh. Rajeev Mohan, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.09.2023

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Phophalia, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Mohan, JCIT-DR

Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

only dispute in the present appeal is with regard to addition of an amount of Rs.4,65,187/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Briefly, the facts are, the deceased assessee was a resident individual. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee ... difference in value as per the declared sale consideration and as determined by stamp duty authority has to be treated as income under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Though, the assessee objected to the proposed addition, however, rejecting the objection of the assessee, the Assessing Officer added

Rhythm Polymers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT Delhi-7, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 423/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

lower than the stamp duty value, the explanation of the assessee was not acceptable to him in the light of provisions contained in section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The Ld. PCIT therefore, applying Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act held the impugned assessment as erroneous ... examine the issue of purchase of property for a consideration lower than the stamp duty value in the light of the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto

DCIT Circle-11(1), New Delhi vs. Hometrail Buildtech Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6095/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr DR

Section 56(2)(viib)

valuation as per DCF Method is rejected and Book Value Method is adopted for the purpose of calculating value for attracting provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 10. The assessee challenged the assessment before the ld. CIT(A) and after considering the facts and submissions

Saleem Ahmed Khan, Boon Electronic, Corporation Market Naudara Bridge, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal in ITA No 88/Jab/2022 is not maintainable, ITA

ITA 88/JAB/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur14 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri H.S Modh, Advocate,ARFor Respondent: Shri.Rajesh Kumar Gupta, CIT-DR

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

disputed issue as envisaged by the Ld. AR that the CIT(A) was erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.35.28 lakhs under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act irrespective of the fact that the assessee has made payments for purchase of property through account payee cheques

Anshika Kumar, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7298/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaanshika Kumar Vs. Dcit, 248, Gujranwala Town, Central Circle-3, Part-3, First Floor, New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 153ASection 155Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

relevant findings given in the impugned order. In so far as addition of Rs 22,60,000 after invoking the deeming provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act, the assessee's case has been that the said property in question was occupied by her husband late

Kanti Commercial (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

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

ITA 574/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 119Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viia)

fair market value and the total purchase consideration of Rs.4,45,68,174/- of Rs.4,45,68,174/- in light of provision of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act, further made addition of Rs.10,15,07,000/- on the ground that investment has been purchased from opening debtors ... above addition, was of the opinion that shares which have been routed at Rs.10 per share was in violation of provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act. The relevant porition of the assessment order are as under:- “7. As per the assessee submission, it may be noted that

Imran Mohamed Ali Kapadia, Mumbai vs. The ITO, Ward-20(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2056/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.2056/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2018-19) Imran Mohamed Ali Kapadia, 1702/1703 Sumer Park, Bldg. No.1, Seth Motishah Cross Lane, Byculla, Mumbai 400 008 Pan: Aupk-9074-A ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito, Ward 20(1)(1), Piramal Chamber, G.B.Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Pratik Mehta "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri H.M.Bhatt सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 12/09/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/09/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 06.04.2023, For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Shri. Pratik Mehta Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted That The Solitary Issue In Present Appeal Is Against The Addition Of ₹30,47,000/- U/S 56(2)(X) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Shri Pratik MehtaFor Respondent: Shri H.M.Bhatt

Section 56(2)(x)

stamp duty value of flat had considerably increased to ₹ 1,30,94,000/-. In scrutiny assessment proceedings the AO invoked the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act and made addition of difference between the stamp duty value and total consideration. Since, share of the assessee in flat ... should be considered for the purpose of 3 determination of Fair Market Value (FMA) of immovable property. He referred to the proviso to section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. 2.2. Without prejudice to his primary submission, the Ld. AR submits that in the case of assessee’s brother

Rohitabh Soni, Kota vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Kota

ITA 349/JPR/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Sept 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Saurabh Harsh (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

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

circumstances of the case the learned lower authorities grossly erred in making an addition of Rs. 86,80,096/ under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the I.T. Act on account of suppression of purchase price of land in the hands of the assessee appellant. 3. That the learned

Sunder Lal, Rewari vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Gurgaon

ITA 1594/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Ishwar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 250

Therefore, an amount of Rs. 8,36,000/- is being added to the total income of the assessee as per the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 14. This finding has been affirmed by the ld.CIT(A) and sustained the said addition ... ground that the addition is sustainable as per the provisions of section 56 (2)(vii)(b) of the Act. It is the contention of the assessee that the official circle rate downloaded from the website of the Office

Sunder Lal, Rewari vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Gurgaon

ITA 1593/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Ishwar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 250

DCIT Circle - 16(1), New Delhi vs. Aruna Chandhok, New Delhi

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA 387/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit, Vs. Smt Aruna Chandhok, Circle-16(1), H-30, Sainik Farms, New Delhi Delhi-110062 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaepc7861R

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 55(2)(aa)Section 56(2)(vii)

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in holding that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act would not apply to bonus shares.” 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find ... made in respect of these bonus shares and bonus units. The assessee vide her submissions dated 04/01/2019 submitted that provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c ) of the Act would not apply to bonus shares at all as it is merely done by capitalization of profits. The value

Income Tax Dept., 24(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Gitika Ganesh Sane, Mumbai

ITA 1088/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 255(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

referred to Hon'ble Third Member for his decision: - "On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, whether the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act is attracted to the impugned transaction of purchase of immovable property and the addition made thereunder by the Assessing ... following draft question after detailed discussion and deliberation. “On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, whether the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act is attracted to the impugned transaction of purchase of immovable property and the addition made thereunder by the Assessing Officer

Aman Growth Fund Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 659/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 659/Del/2021, A.Y. 2015-16 M/S. Aman Growth Fund Vs. Pr. Cit(Central), Private Limited Delhi-2 L-4, Green Park Extension New Delhi Pan : Aaaca0525B Appellant Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

reliance on the assessment order in the case of Rajsheela to hold that income had escaped assessment amounting to Rs. 135.11 Cr. under Section 56(2)(viib) on account of deemed dividend; • That subsequently, ld. PCIT shifted its stand reflecting a mere change of opinion by issuing another SCN dated ... that in the said SCN, ld. PCIT did not draw any reference to Rajsheela assessment order and also removed the specific reference to Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act and stated the generic and boarder provision of Section 56. • Subsequently, in the order passed u/s 263, ld. PCIT states