“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)

Naresh Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue

ITA 1326/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR

under:- “27. We have gone through order of the ld. CIT(A) in detail. The ld. CIT(A) concurrently considered the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) and Section 50C, report of the DVO and the stamp duty valuation (circle rates). The ld. CIT(A) held that the value

Naresh Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue

ITA 1325/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR

Sulochana Saijan Modi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-National E-Assessment Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 557/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh& Shri Om Prakash Kantsulochana Saijan Modi, Ito, A-501, Akar Apartment, National E- बनाम/ Film City Road, Malad Assessment Centre, Vs. East, Mumbai-400097. Mumbai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaopm0887F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Shashi Tulsian ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Ajay Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 11/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 23/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Om Prakash Kant - Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.01.2023 Passed By Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] For Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsianFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh, Sr.AR

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

erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 28,92,650/- u/s 56(2)(x) while doing so, the provisions of the proviso to section 56(2)(x)(b) have been ignored. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred ... assessment proceedings which reflects that the payment was made before the agreement date. Thus, satisfying both the conditions under the proviso to section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. The provision does 2 | P a g e not prescribe quantum of payment to be made.” 3. Briefly stated facts

ITO Ward -3(1), New Delhi vs. Appealing Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1958/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 1958/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S Appealing Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 921A, 9Th Floor, Devika Tower, Ward-3(1), New Delhi-110002 Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaica8767B

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Agarwal, AR &For Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 42Section 56(2)(viib)Section 57(2)(viib)

consideration for issue of shares in F.Y. 2010-11 and the shares were allotted in F.Y. 2014-15 and hence the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) which have come into force from 01.04.2013 cannot be applicable. 6. Aggrieved, the revenue filed appeal before us. 3 Appealing Infrastructure ... appeal was argued on two issues, a. Whether the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib)are applicable for the instant year while the amounts have been received in F.Y. 2010-11. b. Whether the AO is right within his domain to reject the valuation report filed by the assessee

Sis Prosegur Holdings Pvt Ltd, Patna vs. Pr.CIT-1, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 47/PAT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.47/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sis Prosegur Holdings Pvt. Ltd...…………....….........…..........….…… Appellant Annapoorna Bhawan, Patliputra Telephone Exchange, Kurji, Patna, Bihar-800010 [Pan: Aaucs7524A] Vs. Pcit-1, Patna..................................…………........….....…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Nageswar Rao, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 18, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 25.03.2021 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Ld. Pcit While Examining Assessment Records Found That The Assessee During The Year Had Issued 900000 Equity Shares Of Rs.10/- At A Premium Of Rs.90/- Per Share Totalling Rs.100/- Per Share. The Ld. Pcit Further Observed As Under: It Is To Be Noted That, During The Year Under Consideration, The Provisions Of Section 56(2)(Viib) Were Applicable As Per Which If Aggregate Consideration For Issuance Of Shares Is More Than Fair Market

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

share. The ld. PCIT further observed as under: It is to be noted that, during the year under consideration, the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) were applicable as per which if aggregate consideration for issuance of shares is more than fair market I.T.A. No.47/Pat/2021 Assessment Year ... revenue within the meaning of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Therefore, the ld. PCIT noting that the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act was applicable and that the Assessing Officer has not examined the above aspect relating to the fair market value

Mrs. Ruchita Jindal, Mumbai vs. Dy Comm of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 203/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews

Section 142ASection 143(2)Section 148Section 234ASection 56(2)(vii)

case and in law, the learned AO erred in not appreciating that the case of the appellant was covered by the proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b). 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in making addition ... case and in law, the learned AO erred in not appreciating that the case of the appellant was covered by the proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b). 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in making addition

Swati Atul Kadakia, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 338/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleswati Atul Kadakia V. Income Tax Officer – 16(3)(1) Room No. 447 1302, Vasant Aradhana Tower Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Lines Mahavir Nagar, Kandivali (W) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400067 Pan: Aabpk8725D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(x)

with builder. The assessee has executed the purchase agreement in the year under consideration. Thus, the difference only due to time difference. Further Section 56(2)(x)(b) clearly states that- Where any person receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons on or after the 01st ... through a bank account on or before the date of agreement or transfer of such immovable property As per the first proviso to section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (Act) where the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable

Pmp Auto Components P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 7(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in AY 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 587/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 92B(1)

fair market value, as falling under clause (viib) of sub-section (2) of Section 56 of the Act. The amendment/ insertion of section 56(2) (viib) of the Act was with effect from 1st August 2013 and reads as under:- "56(2)(viib): Where a company, not being a company

ACIT Circle-10(1), New Delhi vs. Gamma Pizzakraft (Overseas) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1309/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. T. M. Shiva Kumar, Adv. &For Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 31(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

assessing the income at Rs. 14,56,05,630/- after making an addition of Rs.24,80,39,169/- under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 5. During the year, the assessee company had issued 54,33,548 equity shares to Sapphire Foods India Pvt. Ltd. at a premium ... India (CCI) vide its order dated 13.08.2015 under section 31(1) of Competition Act, 2002. 3 Gamma Pizzakraft (Overseas) Pvt. Ltd. Invocation of Section 56(2)(viib): 6. The assessee company has obtained a valuation report from the Chartered Accountant as required under Rule 11UA(2)(b) of IT Rules

Pooja Mittal, Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 13, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3755/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

entries. The fact of gift from brother Rs.5 lakh was also made available to Assessing Officer and is otherwise exempt from tax under Section 56(2). The assessee contends that primary details are available on the records of Assessing Officer and such information only has caused revisional action

Vijay Kumar, Meerut vs. DCIT, CC, Gzbd

In the result, both appeals of the different assessees are allowed

ITA 26/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 14Section 234ASection 271ASection 56(2)(vii)

raised additional grounds which read as under:- “6.The Assessing Officer has erred in law and in facts in invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act without considering the fact that the property was purchased at the circle rate and there was no understatement whatsoever. Hence ... triggers only of the property is purchased at less than the circle rate. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to the section 56(2)(vii) of the Act as under:- “56. (1) Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from the total income under this

Vinit Kumar, Meerut vs. DCIT, CC, Ghaziabad

In the result, both appeals of the different assessees are allowed

ITA 24/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 14Section 234ASection 271ASection 56(2)(vii)

Sh. Kesar Lal Bairwa, A-24, Varun Colony, Mandara Stand, New Sanganer Road, Mansarovar, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 381/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 28Section 3Section 56(2)(iii)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

liable for taxation by holding as under :- (i) Supreme court decision in case of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) was pronounced on 16.07.2009 whereas section 56(2)(viii) was amended thereafter w.e.f. 01.04.2010 after the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court and thus the judgment of Apex court is not applicable ... compensation amounting to Rs. 23,07,200/- is taxable in the hands of the assessee in AY 2016-17 as per provisions of section 56(2)(viii) of the IT Act. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs. 23,07,200/- to the income declared by the assessee. On appeal

Ranjitbhai Dhayabhai Panchal, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Navsari Circle, Navsari

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 266/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 10(2)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(VII)Section 56(2)(vii)

said gift as income from other sources by taking view that HUF, in not included in the list of relatives as prescribed section 56(2)(vii)(e) of Income Tax Act. The ld AR for the assessee submits that HUF is not different than the family members, thus, gift received ... Ranjitbhai D Panchal members who falls within the definition of relative as prescribed under sub-clause (e) of clause (vii) of under section 56(2) of the Act. 4. The ld AR for the assessee submits that assessee has received gift from its own HUF, which is also exempt under

Cnr Leading Softek Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 6(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7801/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2023AY 2013-14

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

Value (NAV) Method was in accordance with Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules which is the prescribed method for the purpose of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 6. The ld. AO resorted to value the shares of the assessee company using Net Asset Value Method ... addition is deleted on this aspect of the issue, the other grounds raised by the assessee on the non-applicability of provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act in the instance case, need not be gone into and they are left open. Accordingly, the grounds raised

Axia Infoserve LLP, Mumbai vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3142/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleaxia Infoserve Llp V. Additional/Joint/Dy/Acit 16Th Floor, Tower 2A National E-Assessment Centre One Indiabulls Centre Delhi Senapati Bapat Road, Elphinstone Road Mumbai- 400013 Pan: Abifa7158G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Department Represented By : Shri Minal Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(x)

assessee and was asked as to why addition of ₹.9,30,500/- may not be made by invoking the provision of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. 6. Further, Assessing Officer observed that as per copy of another Agreement of Sale executed on 28.07.2017, assessee made investment Page ... issued to the assessee as to why the addition of ₹.88,900/- should not be made by invoking the provision of the section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. 7. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under: - “3. With respect to investment in flat

DCIT Circle-20(1), New Delhi vs. Process Nine Technologies (P) Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 9310/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vi)Section 56(2)(viib)

share premium. During the course of assessment proceeding the Assessing Officer asked the assessee company to submit justification as per Section 56(2)(vi) (b) of the Act for the share value along with 11UA valuation report. Further, vide questionnaire dated 15.12.2018 the assessee company was asked to show cause ... correct at the time at which it was made, and which factor is relevant for determining the applicability or otherwise of section 56(2)(viib) and whether subsequent performance has measured upto the projections used therein. However, the above arguments were not found acceptable by the Assessing Officer and made

Philia Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3139/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhavi, CA and Shri Satyajit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. DR

Section 5Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

head "Profit and Gains of Business & Profession" as against "Income from Other Sources". (ii) That interest on enhanced compensation being specifically covered under section 56(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the same is assessable under the head "Income from Other Sources" and as such the claim ... case, the interest on enhanced compensation is not incidental to business activities of the assessee and same is chargeable to tax under section 56(2)(viii) r.w.s. 57(iv) of the Act. (iv) That even if such interest on enhanced compensation is considered under the head "Profit and Gains

ACIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi vs. Anand Kumar Jain, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2894/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 153A

record. 27. We have gone through order of the ld. CIT(A) in detail. The ld. CIT(A) concurrently considered the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) and Section 50C, report of the DVO and the stamp duty valuation (circle rates). The ld. CIT(A) held that the value

ACIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi vs. Anand Kumar Jain, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2893/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 153A