← 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)

Ronit Capital Management Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 4 (2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6679/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6679/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Ronit Capital बिधम/ Ito-4(2)(1) Management Ltd. 644, Aayakar Bhavan, M. Vs. 233, Shreeji Industrial K. Road, Mumbai- Estate, Subhash Road, 400020. Jogeshwari (E)-400060. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach9239D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharmesh Shah/Ms. Mitali Gopani Revenue By: Smt Riddhi Mishra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-9, Mumbai Dated 23.08.2019 For Ay. 2012-13 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition To The Tune Of Rs.10,43,77,000/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 3. Brief Facts Are That The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income On 30.09.2012 Declaring Total Income To The Tune Of Rs.70,768/-. Later, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny. The Ao Noted That The Assessee Had Only Partly Complied With The Notice Issued By Him On 30.01.2015 & Therefore In View Of The Non-Compliance, He Framed Best Judgment Assessment U/S 144 Of The Act, Making Several Additions Totalling Rs 68.83 Crores, Which Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah/Ms. MitaliFor Respondent: Smt Riddhi Mishra (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 68

reasons for charging high share premium could not be questioned in the relevant AY 2012-13 as the amendment by way of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act came into effect only from AY 2013-14 and onwards, he however showed that the book value of the shares

DCIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi vs. Caddie Hotels Pvt Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1724/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

face value of Rs. 10/- and share premium of Rs. 89.72. The Fair Market Value of the shares for the purpose of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act r.w.r. 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 was carried out by an independent Chartered Accountant who valued the shares ... duly supported by a valuation report as per Rule 11UA of the IT Rules, the ld. CIT(A) observed as under: “(i) Section 56(2) (viib) is a deeming provision and one cannot expand the meaning of scope of any word while interpreting such deeming provision. ii. Option is with

DCIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi vs. Caddie Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1723/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

face value of Rs. 10/- and share premium of Rs. 89.72. The Fair Market Value of the shares for the purpose of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act r.w.r. 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 was carried out by an independent Chartered Accountant who valued the shares ... duly supported by a valuation report as per Rule 11UA of the IT Rules, the ld. CIT(A) observed as under: “(i) Section 56(2) (viib) is a deeming provision and one cannot expand the meaning of scope of any word while interpreting such deeming provision. ii. Option is with

DCIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi vs. Caddie Hotels P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1722/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

face value of Rs. 10/- and share premium of Rs. 89.72. The Fair Market Value of the shares for the purpose of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act r.w.r. 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 was carried out by an independent Chartered Accountant who valued the shares ... duly supported by a valuation report as per Rule 11UA of the IT Rules, the ld. CIT(A) observed as under: “(i) Section 56(2) (viib) is a deeming provision and one cannot expand the meaning of scope of any word while interpreting such deeming provision. ii. Option is with

DCIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi vs. Caddie Hotels P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1721/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

face value of Rs. 10/- and share premium of Rs. 89.72. The Fair Market Value of the shares for the purpose of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act r.w.r. 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 was carried out by an independent Chartered Accountant who valued the shares ... duly supported by a valuation report as per Rule 11UA of the IT Rules, the ld. CIT(A) observed as under: “(i) Section 56(2) (viib) is a deeming provision and one cannot expand the meaning of scope of any word while interpreting such deeming provision. ii. Option is with

Caddie Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT Central Circle 17, Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2014/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

face value of Rs. 10/- and share premium of Rs. 89.72. The Fair Market Value of the shares for the purpose of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act r.w.r. 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 was carried out by an independent Chartered Accountant who valued the shares ... duly supported by a valuation report as per Rule 11UA of the IT Rules, the ld. CIT(A) observed as under: “(i) Section 56(2) (viib) is a deeming provision and one cannot expand the meaning of scope of any word while interpreting such deeming provision. ii. Option is with

Hubtown Ltd, Mum vs. DCIT, CC-2(4), Mum

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3259/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 56(2)(x)Section 69C

income of Rs.4,75,11,720/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 153A wherein he had made a protective addition under section 56(2)(x) of the Act to the tune 3 ITA 3259/Mum/2022 Hubtown Limited of Rs.4,86,23,95,000/- and, also an addition under section ... assessee as to why the amount cannot be assessed as an income under section 41(1) or under section 68 or under section 56(2)(x) in the hands of the assessee. The Assessing Officer, accordingly made an addition of Rs.4,86,23,95,000/- under section 56(2

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon vs. Apca Power Private Limited, Gurgaon

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

ITA 9303/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

filed by the assessee pertains to the addition made by the AO on account of share premium received by the assessee by invoking section 56(2)(viib). The Ld. CIT(A) further noted that this addition was made by the AO vide order dated ... Vivek Chaudhri was non-resident during the year in which shares were issued, the appellant has contended that the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) do not apply in the case of non-resident and as such the penalty imposed may be deleted. I agree with this contention

Apca Power Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 8184/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

filed by the assessee pertains to the addition made by the AO on account of share premium received by the assessee by invoking section 56(2)(viib). The Ld. CIT(A) further noted that this addition was made by the AO vide order dated ... Vivek Chaudhri was non-resident during the year in which shares were issued, the appellant has contended that the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) do not apply in the case of non-resident and as such the penalty imposed may be deleted. I agree with this contention

Extol Wind Ltd, Bhopal vs. The ITO Ward 1 (3), Bhopal

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

ITA 30/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniextol Wind Ltd. Ito Ward 1(3) 104, Jahangirbad Barkhedi Bhopal Vs. Road, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaace 8607 N Assessee By Shri Pawan Ved, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.07.2023

Section 56(2)(viib)

case the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition of share premium made by the AO under provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. During the year under consideration the assesse has issued share @ Rs.80 per share of having face value of Rs.10 at a premium ... assesse was not given opportunity to furnish the value of the shares issued as per the prescribed method as provided in explanation to section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. Ld. AR has submitted that as per the Rule 11UA the fair market value of the shares shall be determined

Hri Healthcare Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT Circle-10(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2437/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhhri Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of 602, 6Th Floor, Supreme Income Tax, Circle Chambers, Off Veera 10(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Desai Road, Andheri (W) 2Nd Floor, Mumbai – 400053 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacch7613M Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : K. Gopal Respondent By : Soumendu Kumar Dash Date Of Hearing 16.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-17, Mumbai, Dated 28.01.2019 For A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1.1 The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Making An Addition Of Rs.4,96,08,000 Under Section 56(2)(Viib) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act') Being The Difference Between The Share Premium Received By The Appellant From Its Holding Company & The Fair Market Value Of The Shares There Of As Computed Under Rule 11Ua Of The Income-Tax Rules, 1962( The Rules") & Cit(A) In Confirming The Same 1.2 The Assessing Officer Erred In Holding The Issue Price Of Right Shares To Existing Shareholder Of The Company Which Were Adopted On The Basis Of A Valuation Report Of An Independent Valuer As Exorbitant On Reasons Purely In The Realm Of Conjectures/Surmises Without Appreciating That The Same Is In Accordance With Provisions Of The Act & Cit(A) In Confirming The Same. 1.3 It Is Submitted That Valuation Is An Art & Not A Science. The Valuation Are Based On Certain Assumptions & Estimations Especially In Case Of New Company. The Valuation Has Been Done Based On The Dcf Method

For Appellant: K. GopalFor Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

raised the following grounds before us: “1.1 The learned assessing officer erred in making an addition of Rs.4,96,08,000 under section 56(2)(viib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act') being the difference between the share premium received by the appellant from its Holding Company ... submitted during the assessment proceedings. 3. The learned assessing officer and CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the objective behind the introduction of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act was to prevent the introduction of black money in the system by way of acceptance of share subscriptions from unaccounted

Rajasthan Transmat Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 165/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MEETHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Mrs. Prabha Rana, AR and Shri Vinod Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

question that the share application money was received in the Financial Year 2011-12 and till that period, neither the provision of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was there in the statute nor Rule 11U and 11UA was prescribed and thus the provision of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) cannot ... made applicable. He further submitted that provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) have been brought in the statute book w.e.f. 01-04-2013 and even the Rules specified 11U and 11UA [for determining value of shares as per Explanation (a) (i) to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) have been inserted

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Circle-3, Ferozepur vs. Measage Om Sons Marketing Private Limited, Faridkot

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

ITA 407/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 37(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

prescribed. The prescribed methods of valuations are given under Rule 11 UA of the Rule. 4.3. The relevant extract of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act is as under: “56(2)(viib) where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives74a ... match projections and failed to provide any alternate fait value of shares; Tribunal was therefore justified in deleting the addition made under section 56(2)(viib).” I.T.A. No.407/Asr/2019 10 Assessment Year: 2015-16 b) Rameshwaram Strong Glass P Ltd. Vs ITO in ITA No. 172 ITD 571 (Jaipur Bench) dated

Pingash Home Appliances Private Limited, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward-2(1), Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 106/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena and Shyam Sunder, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Ram Dhan Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(2)Section 251(1)Section 271Section 56Section 56(2)Section 68

Rs.62,00,000/- under the head income from other sources by /X, ITANo.l06/De 1/2021 Pingash Home Appliances Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2016-17 applying section 56(!2)(viib) of the Act on protective basis and rejecting the valuation report furnished under Rule llUA(2)(b) of the Income Tax Rules ... addition of Rs.62,00,000 for which he held that share premium received in excess of face value is treated as income under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee was dismissed and total income was enhanced under Section

Rukshana Begum, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 2(2), Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3814/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargrukshana Begum, Vs. Ito, W/O. Shri Khalid, R/O. Ward-2(2), 1059, Church Gali, Kaila Ghaziabad Bhatta, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aeepf0220A

For Appellant: Ms. Hasneeta Matta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 50C

keeping aside the amount of stamp duty paid Rs. 2,63,000/-. I am of the considered view that the provision of section 56(2)(b) of the Act, applicable to the case of the purchaser, is applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2014 from AY 2014-15 onwards and not present

ITO Ward - 25(4), New Delhi vs. Triumph Reality Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 1412/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Income-Tax Officer, Versus Triumph Reality Pvt. Ltd. Ward 25(4), New Delhi. Plot No. 2, Vasant Kunj, Phase-Ii, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Pan: Aacct8092L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocate & Sh. Himanshu Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit- Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT- DR
Section 56

applicable as the assessee has not received any shares during the year. Without prejudice, the assessee submitted that as per section 56(2)(viib), the assessee can value shares at its own option as per Rule 11UA. The assessee submitted that as per the discounted cash flow method ... Even otherwise also, the valuation of share as per DCF method has been determined by a registered valuer, which is in terms of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act read with Rule 11UA. Even, the alternative method adopted by the assessee for valuation of share was found

Thinkstations Learning Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-8(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 9824/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

Appeals)] New Delhi for assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17 in sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in respect of share premium received by the assessee. 2. First we take up the appeal ... Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Method for valuation of share price. The Assessing Officer 2 ITA. Nos. 9824 & 7345/Del/2019 referring to the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) and the explanation he was of the view that assessee has to consider the valuation whichever is higher between (i) the valuation according

Thinkstations Learning Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-25(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7345/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

Appeals)] New Delhi for assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17 in sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in respect of share premium received by the assessee. 2. First we take up the appeal ... Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Method for valuation of share price. The Assessing Officer 2 ITA. Nos. 9824 & 7345/Del/2019 referring to the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) and the explanation he was of the view that assessee has to consider the valuation whichever is higher between (i) the valuation according

Mr. Nisar Ahmed Sayed, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-22(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 593/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Us, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee, Ms. Aasifa Khan Submitted That Before The Ld. Ao As Well As Ld. Cit(A) Assessee Could Not Appear Because The Notices Issued On The Email Of The Assessee & She Was Not Aware Of Any Such E-Mail Sent As She Is Not An Educated Person. On Merits She Submitted That Assessee Had Purchased Property I.E. A Small Shop At Shop No.3, Ground Floor, Admeasuring Area 190 Sq.Ft Built Up, Bearing C.S.No.1354, Mahim Division Situated At Cadle Castle Co- Operative Housing Society Ltd, Veer Savarkar Road, Mahim, Mumbai – 400 016. Alongwith Another Co-Owner Shri Siraj Ahmed Merchant Had Purchased A Shop Premise For A Consideration Of Rs.20,00,000/- & Both The Co-Owners Have Paid Rs.10,00,000/- Each. However, The Stamp Value Of The Said Property Was Determined At Rs.37,04,000/- As Mentioned In The Deed Of Transfer.

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

held that since stamp value of 3 Mr. Nisar Ahmed Sayed the property exceeds actual purchase value and therefore, as per Section 56(2)(x). The excess is deemed to be income of the assessee and accordingly, he held that there is a difference of Rs.17,04,000/- and since

Anil Kumar Thakkar, Mayurbhanj vs. ITO, Ward-2, Baripada

ITA 149/CTK/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Section 56(2)(vii)

Rs.15,82,000/- and on the ground that the difference in the consideration was more than Rs.50,000/-, invoked the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act and brought to tax 50% of the difference between Rs 15,82,000 – Rs.9