“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)

Jugraj Singh Chauhan, Noida vs. Ward/Assessment Officer, Noida, G.B Nagar

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8618/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2015-16 Sh. Jugraj Singh Chauhan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, House No. 7, Sector-24, Village Mamura, Sector-66, Noida Gali No. 6, Noida Pan: Acqpc7209M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Aman Singh, Adv. Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 144Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

assessee’s enhanced land acquisition compensation interest under section 28 of the Land Acquisition law; amounting to Rs.67,55,233/- as assessable under section 56(2)(viii) r.w.s. 57(iv) of the Act. 2 | P a g e 5. That being the case, I find that the instant issue

Deepak Kumar Yadav, Rewari vs. ITO, Rewari

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8579/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2020-21 Sh. Deepak Kumar Yadav, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Village-Kapriwas, Ward-2, Rewari, Dharuhera, Haryana Rewari-123401 Pan: Abrpy2885R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

Ghanshyam HUF dated 16th July, 2009 relating to the taxability of interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation and also the amendments/provisions of section 56(2)(viii) introduced through Finance Act, 2009 effective from 01.04.2010 on the above issue, which the Ld. AO failed to do. The Ld. PCIT pointed ... audit objection observing that interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act of Rs. 3,97,56,460/- was chargeable to tax under section 56(2)(viii) of the Act and also referred to the decisions in the cases of Shri Manjeet Singh HUF v. UOI & Others

Colour Creation Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-4(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

ITA 2418/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shrisatbeer Singh Godara & Shri Shris.Rifaur Rahmancolour Creation Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax A-49, Naraina Industrial Area, Circle 4(2), Central Revenue Building, Phase-1, New Delhi-110028. I P Estate, New Delhi-110002. (Pan No. Aaecc0920A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ajay Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2025 Date Of Order : 21.01.2026 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: The Assesse Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl/Jcit-7, Mumbai Dated 13.02.2025 For Assessment Year 2017-18, Wherein The Assesse Has Raised Following Grounds:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Learned Cit (Appeals) Nfac Is Bad, Both In The Eye Of Law & On The Facts. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Learned Cit (Appeals) Nfac Has Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Passing The Order Without Giving Assessee A Proper & Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard In Clear Violation Of Principle Of Natural Justice. 3.(I). On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit (Appeals) Nfac Has Erred, Both On Facts & In Law, In Confirming The Assessment Order, Assessing The Loss Of The Assesseers. 11,10,00,840/- As Against The Returned Loss Of Rs. 11,13,22,840/-.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Arora, Sr. DR

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

quantitative details of relating to trading and finished goods are not submitted, large share premium received during the year (verify applicability of section 56(2)(viib) or any other relevant section, reduction in profit because of application of income computation & disclosure standers , opening written down value of fixed assets ... like goodwill. 3. After considering the submission of the assessee, the Assessing Officer rejected the same and in view of the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, observed that the exemption available is only to venture capital undertaking from a venture capital company or a venture capital

Rivet Health Club Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 2(2), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6182/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

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

made under 68 of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) also confirmed the income of the assessee of Rs.5,76,679/- by invoking the section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) also confirmed the protective addition of Rs. 26,39,050/- and the difference of the interest shown ... assessee is allowed. 14 13. Ground No.3 is regarding the confirming the income of the assessee of Rs. 26,39,650/- by invoking section 56(2) 2(viib) of the Act on protective basis. Ld. AR submitted that both the authorities erred in not accepting the valuation report

Suresh Vitthalrao Barge, Beed vs. Ward-1(5), Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed as per the

ITA 1398/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Digambar Surwase, CAFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 44ASection 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

56(2) (viib) of IT Act, 1961. The Ld CIT(A) erred in holding that provisions of section 56(2)(viib) applicable to stock in trade. The appellant prays for just, proper and appropriate relief. 4. On facts and circumstances of case and in law, CIT(A) erred in confirming

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata vs. Mira Bibi, Murshidabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 727/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra &For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 56(2)Section 68

assessee u/s 68 of the Act. 5.2.2. In the Income Tax Act, 1961, the section deals with taxability of gifts is section 56(2). More specifically, if the gift was given in the period 01.10.2009 to 31.03.2017, the striking section is 56(2)(vii). Hence, there is a need ... brothers-in-law are completely exempted in the hands of any individual. However, it is observed that in spite of adhering the section 56(2)(vii) of the Act, the AO had charged section 68 of the Act on the cash gift money received by the assessee. It is pertinent

ITO-1(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Vishwas Rayons Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1027/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Om Prakash Kantito- 1(3)(4) Vs. Vishwas Rayons Private Room No. 528, 5Th Floor, Limited Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Room No. 19, 3Rd Floor Mumbai- 400020 6 M.K. Amin Marg, Bora Bazar Street, Fort, Mumbai- 400001 Pan/Gir No. Aadcv1302N (Applicant) (Respondent) Assesseeby Shri. Rasesh Shah Revenue By Ms. Kavitha Kaushik,Sr.Dr. Date Of Hearing 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Challenging The Impugned Order 23.12.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below: “1. I) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee & Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,62,27,500/- Made By The Ao Under I The Provisions Of Section 68 Of The 2 Vishwas Rayons Private Limited

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 4Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER& HON’BLE SHRI

Vidya Buildcon Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

ITA 4654/MUM/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by

Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

addition was made by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR further submitted that the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) and section 68 were amended w.e.f. AY 2013-14, whereas the relevant order was AY 2010-11, thus provisions of these sections were ... submitted that such issue was raised before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) and categorically submitted before him that the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) r.w.r. 11UA have come into force only from AY 2013-14 and AY 2018-19 respectively, therefore such provisions cannot apply in the case

Vidya Buildcon Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 8 (3) (3), Aayakar Bhavan

ITA 4650/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by

Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

Krishan Kumar Yadav, Rewari vs. ITO, Ward-2, Rewari

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8417/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 8417/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Krishan Kumar Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, Bank Of Baroda, Circular Road, Ward-2, Rewari, Haryana-123401 Rewari, Haryana-123401 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpy1644F Assessee By: Sh. I. P. Bansal, Adv. & Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.01.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2020-21 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1081822094(1) Dated 16.10.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. I. P. Bansal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

July, 2009 relating to the taxability of interest received on 3 Krishan Kumar Yadav compensation or enhanced compensation and also the amendments/provisions of section 56(2)(viii) introduced through Finance Act, 2009 effective from 01.04.2010 on the above issue, which the Ld. AO failed to do. The Ld. PCIT pointed ... audit objection observing that interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act of Rs. 3,97,56,460/- was chargeable to tax under section 56(2)(viii) of the Act and 4 Krishan Kumar Yadav also referred to the decisions in the cases of Shri Manjeet Singh

Refiral Solutions Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Gurgaon

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 8306/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 8306/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Refiral Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, House No. 1789, Third Floor, Sector- Ward-3(5), 46, Gurgaon-122002 Gurgaon-1220088 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcr0604D Assessee By: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.01.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A), Kolkata’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1081746005(1) Dated 14.10.2025, In Proceedings U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 56(2)(viib)

length. Case file perused. 3. Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive issue challenging both the learned lower authorities respective findings making section 56(2)(viib) addition of alleged unjustifiable share premium amounting to Rs.30,98,800/-; made in assessment order dated 04.12.2017 and upheld to the extent of Rs.29 ... same, the assessing officer was not justified in making addition on this issue. In this regard, as already discussed above, the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the I.T. Act (prevalent during that year) is reproduced: “where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially

Sarbjeet Kour, Jamshedpur vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Jamshedpur

ITA 440/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi19 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Sarbjeet Kour, A.C.I.T., T2/57, Ashok Road, East Singhbhum, Central Circle, Vs. Telco Works So, Jamshedpur-831004. Jamshedpur. Pan No. Bqapk 7229 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 148Section 149Section 149(1)Section 2Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

THAT, the Assessment Order as also the Appellate Order has been passed without due application of judicious mind, inasmuch as, the provision of Section 56(2)(x) has to be read in its entirety and reliance cannot be placed only on a portion of any provision inasmuch ... case of the Appellant, third proviso of Section 56(2)(x) is of much relevance which provides that where the Assessee disputes the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority, aid of Subsection 2 of Section 50C had to be taken and a valuation officer should be appointed, which

Swapnal Subhash Anbhavane, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 7191/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 148Section 148ASection 270ASection 56(2)(vii)

with evidences called for, the Assessing Officer has erred on facts and in law in making an addition of Rs.47,74,681/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in contravention of the provisions of the said section, wherein, the Agreement for the purchase ... circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer has erred on facts and in law in making the addition of Rs.47,74,681/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 under the premise that the Appellant has failed to prove that the entire consideration was paid

Mayur Kanubhai Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 1992)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5600/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rishav PatawariFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

assessee for explanation related to difference of agreement value and the stamp duty value of the property which will contravening provision of section 56 (2)(viib) of the Act. The assessee complied & explained that the assessee purchased the said lad in nature rural agricultural land. So, the alleged section ... this land. Finally the Ld. AO rejected the assessee’s explanation and added back the difference amount to Rs.1,75,97,097/- under section 56(2)(viib). The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) uphold the assessment order. Being aggrieved assessee filed

Vimla Devi Thakran, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8305/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vimla Devi Thakran, Vs. Income Tax Officer, I Tower, Ea-8, 6Th Floor, Tata Ward -43(2), Primanti, South City-Ii, New Delhi Sector-72, Gurgaon Pan: Agfpt4774R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. S.K. Wadhwa, Ca Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

Mahender, Huda Colony, Hansi vs. Income Tax Ward-1, Hisar, Aayakar Bhawan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8139/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

Hero Fincorp Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 11(1), Delhi, C.R. Building

ITA 2542/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2542/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year:2017-18 Hero Fincop Ltd., 34 Community Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1) C. R. Building, New Delhi-110002 अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Pan:Aaach0157J Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Shri Himanshu Aggarwal Adv. Revenue By Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14.01.2026 उद्घोषणाकीतारीख/Pronouncement On 16.01.2026 आदेश /Order Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am, The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of ‘Hire Purchase Leasing & Finance'. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/(First Appellate Authority Hereinafter Referred As “Faa”), Delhi Dated 27.03.2024 Arising Out Of Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 29.12.2019For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Disallowance Of Provision For Collection Charges -Rs. 9,75,00,000/-

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 251(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

rectification order dated 09.05.2023 passed by the assessing officer under section 154 deleting the incorrect addition of Rs.418,66,34,625 made under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, to be non- est and in restoring the additions made in the assessment order. 13. That the NFAC grossly erred ... thereafter, dismissing the ground raised as not adjudicated', rather than deleting the incorrect addition of Rs.418,66,34,625 made under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 14. That the impugned order passed by the NFAC is in gross violation of provisions of sections

Jagpal, Gurugram vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2092/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D.S. Sidhu, CIT-DR

Section 10(37)Section 145ASection 148Section 263Section 263(1)Section 28Section 34Section 56(2)(viii)

terms of law laid down by Supreme Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court as well law provided in the Act in terms of section 56(2)(viii) r.w. 57(iv) read with section 145A. The PCIT further found that the AO did not make any inquiry with regard ... will be exigible to tax under the "income from other sources" in view of amendment w.e.f 01.04.2010 in the provisions of section 56(2)(viii) and 57(iv) of the Act. 7. The issue is no longer integra. The issue has been decided by the Delhi ITAT Benches

Tahir Khan, Jhansi vs. Income Tax Officer-2(3)(1), Jhansi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 468/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 56(2)(vii)

assessment order. 6. BECAUSE, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the major addition of Rs.97,31,000/- made under section 56(2)(vii) of the 'Act' being on account of deeming fiction cannot be a valid foundation for levy of penalty under section

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Snowfall Commotrade Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross-objection of the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 2087/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata………...….……………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. M/S Snowfall Commotrade Pvt. Ltd….……………………………...…..…..Respondent 27, Modi Building, R N Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700001. [Pan: Aaics0531J] C.O. 85/Kol/2025 (In Ita No.2087/Kol/2025) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Snowfall Commotrade Pvt. Ltd.….……………………………… Cross-Objector 27, Modi Building, R N Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700001. [Pan: Aaics0531J] Vs. Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata ……………………………..…...…..…………….Respondent Appearances By: Shri J. M. Thad, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 07, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey:

Section 14ASection 250

make an addition of Rs.6,16,71,539/-, treating it as a case of overvaluation. However, Rule 11UA is applicable in cases where Section 56(2) is attracted - specifically, where shares are received either without consideration or at a value less than the fair market value. In the present case ... appellant purchased shares at a value higher than the fair market value. Hence, the foundational requirement for invoking Section 56(2) and thereby Rule 11UA is absent. The application of these provisions in this scenario is legally untenable. The A.O. alleged that investments were made in companies with a common