← 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)

Hassanand Khemlani, Indore vs. The PCIT-1, Indore

ITA 110/IND/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: & Shri Santosh Deshmukh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT.D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 56(2)(vii)

case, the learned Hon'ble Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore- 1, Indore had erred in ignoring that the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) can be invoked only where sale consideration on sale of immovable property is less than stamp duty valuation. Therefore, the appellant prays that ... Such finding of the Ld. AO has found to be is not fair and the same is violation of the provision of Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act as of the ultimate view of the Ld. PCIT. In fact, Ld. PCIT was of the opinion that

Manilal Jethabhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(3), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 43/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Manilal Jethabhai Patel, I.T.O., Shop No. 03, Uma Bhavan, Near Ward 1(3)(3), Vs. Kansarawad, Moti Bazar, Bhatar Surat-395001. Road, Bhatar, Surat-395017. Email:Carohitktaja@Gmail.Com Pan No. Aanpp 2768 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 22/11/2019 and made addition on account of unexplained investment under Section 69 and addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee by holding that in spite of several opportunities, no one attended

Chhattisgarh Metaliks and Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer -3(3), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 114/RPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.114/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Chhattisgarh Metaliks & Alloys Private Limited Mohini B-5, Merlin Jayashree Vihar, Mandi Gate, Pandri Tarai, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aadcc9242J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(3), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: None
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

fact, we find that the CBDT vide its Circular No.10 of 2018, dated 31.12.2018, had earlier clarified that the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act shall not be applicable in cases of receipt of shares by the specified company or firm as a result of fresh issuance ... stated by the Ld. AR, 8 Chhattisgarh Metaliks and Alloys Private Limited Vs. ITO-3(3), Raipur and, rightly so, the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act in the backdrop of the facts of the case before us could not have been triggered. 15. At this stage

Chandubhai B Khatrani, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 46/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhsh. Chandubhai B Khatrani, Ito, Ward, I-402, Kaveari Habitat, 3(3)(1),Surat. Vs. Near Sarthana, Jakatnaka, Varachha Road, Surat. Email:Vrmandassociates@Gmail.Com 9016091548/ 9879056986 Pan No. Asrpk 3514 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 144Section 254(1)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

made addition under section 69 of Rs. 9,54,120/- on account of unexplained investment for purchasing property and addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of Rs. 2,58,188/- . The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee by holding that in spite of several opportunities

Mr. Rolhan Sanjay Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3)(4), Surat

ITA 219/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Rohan Sanjay Patel, I.T.O., “Sanket” Bungalow, Ward 1(3)(4), Vs. Near Bungalow No. 122 Of Sarjan Surat. Society, Opposite Science Centre, City Light Road, Surat-395007. Pan No. Ascpp 8025 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

between the fair market value determined by stamp duty authority and the value declared in the sale deed (conveyance deed), thus provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act, attract on such transaction. The share of assessee and difference amount ... consideration declared in the sale deed, which is treated as income from other sources as per the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. As recorded above, the Assessing Officer worked out the share of assessee at Rs. 12,33,150/- from total investment by all co-owners

Nirmal Singh Malhi, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-30(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7465/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Tushar Jarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 45Section 51Section 56(2)(ix)

After deducting the refund of Rs.50,00,000/-, the Assessing Office has added. 6. The Ld.CIT(A) held that Section 51 and Section 56(2)(ix) are applicable only where the sum of money received as advance in the course of negotiations for the transfer of capital asset has been

Planet Gogo Private Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward-3(2), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1526/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2016-17

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

Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2016-17. 2. The dispute in the present appeal is confined to addition of Rs.48,63,880 under Section 56(2) (viib) of the Income-Tax Act,1961. 2 ITA No.1526/Del./2022 3. Briefly, the facts are, the assessee is a corporate entity carrying ... learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that M/s. NBM Investment Fund ALP is a non resident entity, hence, the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) would not be applicable. In support of such contention, he relied upon a decision of the Tribunal in case of M/s. Ruchi

Mrs Arvinder Kaur, Greater Noida vs. ITO, Noida

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2491/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.2491 /Del/2016 (Assessment Year : 2010-11)

Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

Charan Singh, the maternal uncle of the assessee. The AO has rejected the claim of gift in the light of provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act which were introduced in the Act by Finance Act, 2010, with retrospective effect from 01.10.2009. The Ld. AO had considered ... undisclosed source. 3. In the appeal preferred by the assessee, she challenged the order of ld. AO on the ground primarily that Section 56(2) of the Act, has no applicability in the case as the gift has been made prior to 1st October, 2009 Mrs. Arvinder kaur

Virender Yadav, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 4(4), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1787/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

Section 131

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. ASTHA

ACIT, Circle-7(2), New Delhi vs. Drishti Soft Solutiions Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8523/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usacit Vs. Drishti Soft Solutions Pvt. Circle – 7(2), Ltd., F-2, 40 Feet Road, New Delhi Ganga Vihar, Gokulpur, New Delhi – 110 094 Pan No. Aabcd 9373 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri K. M. Gupta, Adv. & Shri Rishabh Malhotra, A.R. Revenue By Shri T. James Singson, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.02.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.09.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :-

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

order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). Before CIT(A), assessee inter alia contended that the provision of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act are not applicable in view of the proviso of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. It was submitted that the provision ... Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act would not be applicable where the consideration for issue of share is received by a venture capital undertaking from venture capital company or venture capital fund. It was further submitted that assessee was a venture capital undertaking, the investor was granted registration

Sng Metals Private Limited, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward-2(4), Faridabad

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7450/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2015-16

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

That the Learned CIT(A) and the Learned 1T0 grossly erred in making addition of Rs. 3507000/ by applying the provisions of section 56(2) (viib) of the Act without appreciating the fact that all the shares are issued to the family members and since it is a closely held ... intends to Tax only Income and not capital receipts the share premium received is a capital receipt and cannot be taxed under Section 56 (2) (viib) of the Act. 4. That provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act creates a deeming fiction and while giving effect to such

Subhash Chand Dhingra, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1063/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

enhanced compensation is exempt has been stated by the jurisdictional High Court of Punjab & Haryana or Supreme Court? c) Whether the provisions of section 56(2)(viii); 57(iv) read with section 145A introduced from 01.04.2010 are applicable in the case of the assessee being statutory provisions brought ... paid for acquisition of his land, 50 per cent of said interest was taxable as income from other sources as per provision of section 56(2)(viii) read with section 57(iv) and 145A(b) in year of receipt. It held as follows: - “19. The cumulative effect of Section 145A

Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1061/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

enhanced compensation is exempt has been stated by the jurisdictional High Court of Punjab & Haryana or Supreme Court? c) Whether the provisions of section 56(2)(viii); 57(iv) read with section 145A introduced from 01.04.2010 are applicable in the case of the assessee being statutory provisions brought ... paid for acquisition of his land, 50 per cent of said interest was taxable as income from other sources as per provision of section 56(2)(viii) read with section 57(iv) and 145A(b) in year of receipt. It held as follows: - “19. The cumulative effect of Section 145A

Satish Kumar Dhingra, Haryana vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1060/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

enhanced compensation is exempt has been stated by the jurisdictional High Court of Punjab & Haryana or Supreme Court? c) Whether the provisions of section 56(2)(viii); 57(iv) read with section 145A introduced from 01.04.2010 are applicable in the case of the assessee being statutory provisions brought ... paid for acquisition of his land, 50 per cent of said interest was taxable as income from other sources as per provision of section 56(2)(viii) read with section 57(iv) and 145A(b) in year of receipt. It held as follows: - “19. The cumulative effect of Section 145A

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat vs. M/S. R K Shah Projects Pvt. Ltd, Surat

In the result, ground no.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 55/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.55/Srt/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S R.K.Shah Projects Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, Aditya Complex, Nr. Tax., Circle-2(1)(1), Room No.216, Vs. Kapadia Health Club, Bhatar Road, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Surat-395007 Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr 8584 Q (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh R Seth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli– CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

transactions were not proved. 12. The Ld DR also stated that addition on account of protective addition made on account of provisions of section 56(2) (viib) at Rs.1,54,452/- has not been discussed and adjudicated by ld CIT(A) which is part of share capital and share premium ... shares was equal to Rs.1,54,452/- and so addition of Rs.1,54,452/-was made on account of provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the I.T Act, 1961. The assessee company had furnished statement showing working of the book value of shares. It is reported in the remand

Supreme Auto 9India) Pvt, Ltd, Indore vs. ITO1 (4), Indore

In the result, the appealof assesseeis partly allowed in terms indicated above

ITA 133/IND/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 68

premium) to Smt. Rajni Choudhary. Ld. AO asked the assessee to justify the fair market value of shares in terms of section 56(2), in response to which the assessee filed a reply dated 07.12.2015 which is reproduced by Ld. AO in Para No. 2.1 to 2.3 of assessment-order ... share, being the difference of Rs. 60/- and Rs. 57.76 per share, which gives rise to taxable income in terms of section 56(2). However, we observe that in Para No. 1.3 and 2.2 of the assessment-order, the Ld. AO has mentioned that the assessee- company issued

Rekha Ajaykumar Agrawal, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner O Income Tax, Cir.1(2), Surat

ITA 356/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपील सं./Ita No.356/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Rekha Ajaykumar Agrawal Assistant Commissioner Of 229-230, Ashoka Tower, Ring Income-Tax, Circle-1(2), Aayakar Vs. Road,Surat-395002 Bhavan, N. Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaspa 2993 A (Assessee ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh C Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kuamr, Sr-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 23(2)Section 23(4)Section 24Section 56(2)(vii)

dated 29.12.2017. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals) has erred in applying section 56(2)(vii)(b), though the transaction was commenced at a time when the such provision was not in the statute. 2

Shri Anil Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2895/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.DR
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

period vide Ass. order dated 23.10.2013. 2.4 In this factual backdrop, certain additions were made to the returned income under Section 68 and Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. Certain disallowances towards expenses were also carried out and the income was assessed at Rs.2,60,23,842/-. 3. Aggrieved ... additions made towards unproved loans under Section 68 of the Act aggregating to Rs.1,06,49,871 from various parties; the additions under Section 56(2) on account of transactions relating to purchase of shares of Era Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs.1,26,82,500/- and disallowance

Sh. Manjeet Singh, Karnal vs. ITO, Karnal

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1391/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Aditya Srinivasan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. K. K. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 145ASection 2Section 23(1)Section 28Section 4Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)

interest on the compensation received by the assessee is in the nature of compensation exempt from tax u/s 10(37) or taxable under Section 56(2)(viii) as interest under the head “income from other sources”. 10. This matter has been argued at length and carefully analyzed by various judicial

Sh. Puneet Singh, Karnal vs. ACIT, Karnal

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1389/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Aditya Srinivasan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. K. K. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 145ASection 2Section 23(1)Section 28Section 4Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)

interest on the compensation received by the assessee is in the nature of compensation exempt from tax u/s 10(37) or taxable under Section 56(2)(viii) as interest under the head “income from other sources”. 10. This matter has been argued at length and carefully analyzed by various judicial