“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)

Ashutosh Sinha, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 643/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

shareholder in the property, therefore, amount of Rs.1,09,37,003/- is taxable in the hands of the assessee as per Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii). 3.1 During the course of assessment proceedings AO noted that the entire payment for the purchases of the property at Villa 3 Shri ... case of disagreement. The ld. AO held that the contention of the assessee cannot be accepted because the provision of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) is very clear that the actual consideration for a property cannot be less than its stamp duty value. Thus, he held that assessee’s case

Girnar Software Private Limited, 6Th Floor, Jaipur Textile Market, B-2, Near Model Town, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur vs. PCIT – 2, Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 330/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri PC Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263

Jaipur. the Act passed an assessment order making an addition of Rs 15,86,71,424/- on account of securities premium under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, 1961. 2.1 Thereafter, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -2 issued notice dated 3rd March 2023 providing an opportunity

Shree Navkar Realinfra Private Limited, Bhilwara vs. PCIT, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 133/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of This Appeal.”

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

offer as regard the issue of disproportionate allotment of shares. Hence, necessary action is called for in view of the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) / 56(2)(viia). Further, also no explanation has been offered as regard the point No. 5 as per this office notice for hearing dated ... selected for Limited Scrutiny through CASS and the issue for examination was “Large Share Premium received during the year ( Verify applicability of section 56(2)(viib) or any other relevant section). On this issue the ld. AO has called for the details and also found discussion in the order

Elvis Zepherin Crasto, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Int Tax Ward 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1921/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleelvis Zepherin Crasto V. Income Tax Officer Gorai Village, Jui Pada International Taxation Gorai Essel World Road Ward – 2(1)(1) Borivali (W), Mumbai - 400091 Room No. 1724, 17Th Floor Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Asgpc6280N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)Section 56(2)Section 69

necessary explanation along with documentary evidences to justify the difference between agreement value and the stamp duty valuation and why the provisions of section 56(2) of the Act should not be invoked. 2 Elvis Zepherin Crasto 4. In response assessee filed the explanation on 27.02.2021 and in which assessee ... paid or received by the parties while carrying out the transaction purchased or sale. He also strongly objected for invocation of provisions of section 56(2) of the Act in his case. Further, he has also shown willingness to submit valuation report from Government valuer in respect of above land

M/S. Doit Creations (India) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and additional ground of appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1354/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdoit Creations (India) Vs. Principal Commissioner Private Limited Of Income Tax, Central 307 & 308, 3Rd Floor,, Circle 3, Room No. 1901, Midas, Sahar Plaza, 19Th Floor, Air India Andheri (East) Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 069 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcd8695A Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Dharan Gandhi Respondent By : Neena Jeph Date Of Hearing 27.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23.07.2023 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. Pcit(Central), Mumbai -3, Dated 31.03.2022 For A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon'Ble Pr.Cit Central - 3 (Herein After Referred As 'Pcit) Erred In Invoking Provisions Of Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As 'The Act') By Issuing The Notice Inspite Of The Fact That Assessment U/S. 143(3) & U/S 143(3) R.Ws 147 Of The Act Has Been Completed After Due Examination & Application Of Mind While Framing The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) & U/S 143(3) Rws 147 Of The Act. Further Order U/S 263 Is Also Passed Merely Setting Aside The Assessment To The File Of The Learned Assessing Officer To Conduct Proper Inquiry Which Is Unjustified. It Is Therefore Submitted That The Order Passed U/S 263 Should Be Cancelled.

For Appellant: Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Neena Jeph

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

assessee company on 29.03.2022. The relevant part of the show cause notice is reproduced as under: “(i) As per the provisions of the section 56(2)(viib) of the IT Act applicable with effect from Assessment year 2013-14, where a company, not being a company in which the public ... declaring total loss of Rs.5,87,23,419/- The case was selected under limited scrutiny to verify among other issues the applicability of section 56(2)(viib) on receipt of large share premium during the year. The assessment was finalized after the scrutiny

Bhargav Bharatbhai Pandya, Surat vs. Income Tax Office, Ward 2(1)(3), Surat

In the result, ground No

ITA 354/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Bhargav Bharatbhai Pandya, I.T.O., 61, Shubham Row House, Near Ward-2(1)(3), Vs. Sarasswati School, Honey Park Surat. Road, Adajan, Surat-395009. Pan No. Bcwpp 1537 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 56(2)(x)Section 68

share of assessee and her mother is 27.78% and 72.22% respectively. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the provisions of Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) is applicable as the assessee has shown inadequate consideration for purchase of immovable ... assessee for giving his comment/objection, however, no comment/reply of assessee was received by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer made addition under Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act of Rs. 2,29,880/- and Rs. 10.00 lacs on account of unexplained cash credit under Section

ACIT, Circle- 7(2), New Delhi vs. Dharitrimaa Urja Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 5682/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal.” Grounds Of Appeal.”

Section 14Section 234Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

whereas share application money was received in previous year relevant to assessment year 2014-15 which is against the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act. Page 2 of 5 ACIT vs. Dharitrimaa Urja Pvt. Ltd. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... assessing officer has erred in ignoring the valuation reports of valuers as per section 56(2)viib) read with rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules.. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer has wrongly considered the Net Asset Value

Income Tax Officer -10(2)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Maiden Marketing India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1624/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhincome-Tax Officer Vs. M/S Maiden Marketing 10(2)(3), India Private Limited Room No. 212, 2 Nd Floor, 1601, Plot No. A-4, Cts Aayakar Bhavan, No. 694, Peninsula Park, Mumbai – 400020 16Th Floor, Fun Republic Lane, Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400 053 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaicm7168E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Mahita Nair

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(viib)

r.w.s. 1448 amount to exercise of power of review which is not available to the Assessing Officer ignoring that the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) relevant to the original assessment proceeding and 68 relevant to the present assessment proceeding are not pari materia?" 2

M/S. Bharat Cera Glass Limited, Bhilwara vs. ITO, Ward-3, Bhilwara

In the result, both the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 411/JODH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Bharat Cera Glass Limited, Income Tax Officer, 1-B-24, Shashtri Nagar, Vs Ward-3, Bhilwara Bhilwara Pan: Aaecb4366K Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

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

premium in the balance-sheet. Since the assessee is a company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Assessing Officer invoked section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. The assessee had not submitted any certified copy of valuation during the assessment proceedings and also during the proceedings before ... shares of Rs. 1,25,37,000/- as against Rs. 1,40,00,000/- received by the assessee. Therefore, AO made addition under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act of Rs. 14,63,000/-. 6. Aggrieved by the said addition, assessee filed the appeal before

Smt. Mumtajbanu A. Jivani, Amreli vs. The ITO, Ward-3 (1) (4), Amreli

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 284/RJT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 269USection 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

solitary issue in the present appeal relates to the addition to the income of the assessee in terms of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act amounting to Rs. 55,91,837/-, being the amount by which an immoveable property purchased by the assessee fell short of its stamp ... property adopted for stamp duty valuation, he treated the difference of Rs. 1,11,83,673/- as income in terms of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The assessee’s share in the property being 50%, addition of 50% of the difference

Shri Shailesh Mohanbhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(4), Surat

ITA 315/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.315/Srt/2023 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Shailesh Mohanbhai Patel Income Tax Officer, At & Po: Sarsana, Khajod, Ward-2(3)(4), Surat, Vs Surat-395007 Aayakar Bhavan, Room Pan No: Aqapp 7701 P No.613, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

Officer passed the assessment order without giving opportunity to assessee and passed assessment order by making addition of Rs.4,43,3,66/- under section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. The addition was made on account of difference in sale consideration paid by assessee on purchase of plots of lands ... file of Assessing Officer to give assessee fair and reasonable opportunity for de novo assessment order on the issue of addition under section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. 4. On the other hand, learned departmental representative (Ld. Sr-DR) for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Narendra Gehlaut, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed e appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1101/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Dy. Cit, Central Circle-6(4), Shri Narendra Gehlaut, Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Air 875, Sector – 17B, Gurgaon, India Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Haryana, 122 001. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aazpg 9630 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. K. GopalFor Respondent: Mr. Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR

falling under the provisions o and taxable as income falling under the provisions o and taxable as income falling under the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. (e) The Assessing Officer also held the cash found at the The Assessing

Naresh Kumar Jindal, Hanumangarh Junction vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Bikaner

Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 11,20,000/- is sustained. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant regarding this issue are dismissed

ITA 18/JODH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur31 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

justified for addition of Rs.16,226 made for differential amount in DLC Value and consideration disclosed in registered purchase document after referring to section 56(2)(vii)(b) whereas these provisions would not apply in a case where difference in DLC Value and consideration shown in registered documents is less

DCIT 1(1), Bhopal vs. M/S. Decore Thermal Power (P) Ltd., Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross objection of the

ITA 15/IND/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vib)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 56(2)(viilb)Section 56(2)(vilb)Section 68

following grounds: 1. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that provisions of section 56(2)(viib) would not apply in the case of the assessee as no consideration was received by the assessee, when the assessee had received consideration ... condition that such consideration has to be received in the form of share premium only is against the legislative intent, when in the section 56(2)(viib), only the word consideration is mentioned and there is no mention of the word share premium. 3. Whether on facts and circumstances

ACIT, Cir-1(3), Surat vs. Pravin Pannalal Shah, Surat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 289/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.289/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Pravin Pannalal Shah Lal Bunglow, Athwalines, Income-Tax, Circle-1(3, Vs. Surat-395007 Room No.301, 3Rd Floor, Anavil Business Centre, Hajira Road, Adajan, Surat-395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrps 1045 H (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act whereas there is separate provision for gift in the Income Tax Act, which are contained in Section 56(2) (vii) of the Act. The ld Counsel also relied on various judicial precedents in support of his stand and contended that

Citron Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central)-4, Mumbai

ITA 1518/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. K.C. Selvamani, CIT D.R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 56(2)(viib)

provided in rule- 11UA(2)(a) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (for short ‘the Rules’) and thereby invoked the provisions contained under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act and worked out the share value as per rule 11U at Rs.136/-. 5. The Ld. PCIT reported to have given

Income Tax Officer-25(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mahavir Enterprises, Mumbai

ITA 1304/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer, without appreciating that the said addition was made following provisions of the Section 56(2)(x) of the Act? Mahavir Enterprises ITA no.1304/Mum./2023 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT ... ground which may be necessary.” 3. The only dispute raised by the Revenue is against the deletion of addition under section 56(2)(x) of the Act on account of the difference in stamp duty value and the consideration paid by the assessee as the highest bidder. 4. The facts

Hiranandani Healthcare P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. CIT(Appeals), Mumbai

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

ITA 3240/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm)

Section 68Section 79Section 79(1)

response to the above said query, the assessee submitted that the share premium can be assessed as income, only under the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the I.T. Act, which was inserted by the Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013. Hence, the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) shall

Lalita, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, New Delhi

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

ITA 9874/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Lalita, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-2, 248, Ist Floor, New Delhi. Gujaranwalan Town, Part-Iii, New Delhi-1100 09 Pan :Aatpl3102H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

assessee has challenged two issues, firstly, the addition of Rs.22,60,000 after invoking the 2 ITA No. 9874/Del./2019 provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that circle rate of the property was more than the sales consideration ... Canada and it was a distress sale because the said property was under tenancy. Learned Assessing Officer held that as per Proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act, the sales consideration is deemed to be as per the circle rate at Rs.1

Anil Todarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO-41(4)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1362/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D. Sheth, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

inter-alia that :- “First Ground of Appeal: 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming addition of Rs.5,81,264 under section 56(2)(x). 2 Shri Anil Todarwal 2. He failed to take into consideration that the difference between the fair value reported in the report ... District Valuation Officer and the actual purchase consideration was within the permissible tolerance limit of 5% as stated in section 56(2)(x). 3. The appellant prays that the addition of 5,81,264 under section 56(2)(x) be deleted.” 2. Briefly stated facts necessary for consideration and adjudication