“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)

Ranjit Shivram Raut, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-3, Palghar

ITA 1902/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ranjit Shivram Raut, Ito, Ward 3, B-301, Dasrath Singh Nagar, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Devashi Road, Bhaji Market, Bidco Road, Palghar (W), Palghar-401404 Tal. & Dist. Palghar-401404. Pan No. Ajhpr 0430 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Subodh Ratnaparkhi, Ar : Revenue By Smt. Mahita Nair, Cit- Dr Mr. T. Shankar, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 06/09/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 16/11/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Subodh Ratnaparkhi, AR

Section 56(2)(vii)

that the lands purchased were not capital assets and that the lands purchased were not capital assets and therefor therefore the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(i) were not e the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(i) were not attracted and the addition was not justified

Jt CIT (OSD) Central Circle1(4), Mumbai vs. Parel Graphic Print Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ITA number 880/M/2022 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 880/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Jt. Commissioner Of Income Podar Media Magazine & Tax Graphics Prints Pvt. Ltd. (Osd), Central Circle 1(4) 85, Podar Centre, 9Th Floor, 902, Parel Post Office Lane, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan, Opp. Ambedkar Road, M.K. Road, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecp9649K Jt. Commissioner Of Income Parel Graphic Prints Pvt Tax Limited (Osd), Central Circle 1(4) 85, Podar Centre, 9Th Floor, 902, Parel Post Office Lane, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan, Opp. Ambedkar Road, M.K. Road, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagcp2425D Assessee By : Ms. Nishitamandalaywala, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Nimesh Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.11.2022

For Appellant: Ms. NishitaMandalaywala, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Nimesh Yadav, CIT DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 56(2)(viib)Section 68

parties as well as the genuineness of the transactions and also to justify the share premium and applicability of provision of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. The learned Assessing Officer further noted that various statements were recorded during the course of search of Shri Kirit Kumar Suba, Shri

Joint CIT (OSD) Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. Podar Media Magazine & Graphics Prints Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ITA number 880/M/2022 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 874/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. NishitaMandalaywala, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Nimesh Yadav, CIT DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 56(2)(viib)Section 68

ITO - 25(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Rajni D. Saini, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7120/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 7120/मुं/2018 (िन.व. 2014-15) Income Tax Officer- 25(3)(3), Room No.606, 6Th Floor, C-10, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400 051 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Rajni D. Saini 6, Lalit Kunj, Dadabhai Road, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai 400 056. Pan: Aacps-7288-J ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Smt. Shailaja Rai "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Dr. K. Shivram With Shri Shashi Bekal सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/11/2022 आदेश/ Order This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 37, Mumbai [ In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 4/10/2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue In Appeal Has Raised Eight Grounds Assailing The Findings Of Cit(A) Deleting Addition Of Rs.5,13,25,000/- U/S. 56(2)(Vii)(B) Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Smt. Shailaja RaiFor Respondent: Dr. K. Shivram with Shri Shashi Bekal

Section 56(2)(vii)

allotment would be the date of purchase of immovable property. The ld.Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the first proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the sale consideration agreed in the letter of allotment can be treated ... done on 01/08/2013 in a period relevant to the Assessment Year 2014-15. The ld.Counsel for the assessee submits that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act cannot have retrospective effect, hence, the same would be not applicable on a transaction completed in Assessment Year

DCIT Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S.Gandhar Yarn Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 907/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Mane

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 68

valuation is a consideration for the investor and not for the Revenue, especially in the light of the fact that the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) were introduced in the statue w.e.f. 01.04.2013 and have not been given retrospective effect. Thus, as per the Appellant, the provisions of section ... made by the AO cannot be sustained. 16. Coming to the other aspect of the issue, the AO has invoked the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the I.T. Act, 1961. We find that the said provision has been inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f 10.04.2013, where it provides

Pinky Dilip Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO - 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 148/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

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

difference between the sale consideration and the value determined by the stamp duty authority for the purpose of stamp duty as per Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 3.1. I have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is an individual ... Pinky Dilip Mehta difference in consideration of Rs.38,31,000/- being not brought to tax in terms of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act being the year under consideration. The details of property purchased by the assessee are as under:- Details of Date of Agreement Stamp duty Difference

Asst CIT Cir. 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Dpn Reality Deals Pvt Ltd., Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 1347/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Vp आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1347/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17) Acit, Circle-15(1)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Dpn Reality Deals Room No. 483A, 4Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Unit No. 4, Building No. 400020. 2, Sector-1, Millenium Business Park Mahape, Navi Mumbai-400710. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacy6576C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Saurabh Bhat Revenue By: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -24, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Dated 18.11.2019 For Ay. 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Revenue Reads As Under: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Appeal & Deleting The Additions Of Rs.19,46,21,075/- Made U/S 56(2)(Viib) Of The Act. 2. The Appellant Prays That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) On The Above Ground Be Set Aside & That Of The Ao Be Restored.”

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh BhatFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (DR)

Section 56(2)(viib)

Rs.19,46,21,075/-. The aforesaid allotment was done by the assessee by claiming that it has complied with the provision of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act r.w. Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 (hereinafter “the Rules”) and accordingly the fair market value of the share ... rejected and, therefore, the book value method as per RULE 11UA (2)(a) should not be taken for the purpose of Section 56(2)(viib) of the IT. Act, 1961. 4.4 During the proceedings, the assessee company has neither submitted its response nor any explanation in reply to the detailed

ACIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2758/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 14ASection 199(2)Section 801A(4)Section 80I

shares, if it exceeds the fair market value, as falling under clause (viib) of sub-section (2) of section 56. The amendment/insertion of section 56(2)(viib) was with effect from 1-4-2013. However, as this provision was made effective only with effect from ... part of international transactions at that point of time. We observe that there is amendment in section 56 and the legislature introduced the section 56(2)(viib) of the Act with effect from 1.8.2013 involving receipt of share capital if it exceeds the fair market value, the difference is chargeable

ACIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2757/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 14ASection 199(2)Section 801A(4)Section 80I

ACIT 19(2), Mumbai vs. Smt.Padmimi Somani, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7138/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

shares at a lower price without producing supporting documents to rebut such claim. The assessee also placed on record the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act before the ld. CIT(A) wherein it was submitted that when the shares are issued at a price which exceeds face

Smt. Kumar Gomathi, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC - 2 (3), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3417/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms.T.V.Muthu Abirami, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M.Rajan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 56(2)

2 :: 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that gift received from relative is not taxable as per section 56(2). 5. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in stating that the appellant surrendered her income when she could not explain

S.A. Metro Plots Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward - 6 (1), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1909/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri G. Sivasubramanian (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

assessee are as under: 1. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) 15, erred in upholding that share premium as income under section 56(2)(viib) for the Asst. Year 2015- 16. The Appellant submits that the amount of share subscription money of Rs.70,00,000 was received ... Appeals) has filed to appreciate the equity shares issued by virtue of conversion of CCPS into equity shares is not covered by Section 56 (2) (viib). 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) 15 further erred in not appreciating that the Section 56(2)(viib) was brought into force

ITO Corporate Ward 4(3), Chennai vs. Kaino Infra Development Private Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1491/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1491/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) The Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S. Kaino Infra Development Corporate Ward-4(3) Pvt Ltd., Chennai-34. 37, Ttk Road, Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018. Pan: Aadcr 5655E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit For Mr. V.Vikekananthan, Cit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. G.Seetharaman, C.A. & Mr.S.Sundararaman, C.A सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Chennai Dated 31.01.2019 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A) Is Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Allowing The Assessee'S Appeal By Stating That The Assessee Company Has Sufficiently & Reasonably Justified The Share Premium Received Of Rs.168.60 Crores For The Year.

For Appellant: Mr. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT for Mr. V.Vikekananthan, CITFor Respondent: Mr. G.Seetharaman, C.A. &

Section 56(2)(vii)

books of assessee in the form of share premium under the head "income from other sources" as per the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the I.T. Act. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that M/s.Grande LLP has a net asset value of Rs.168.31 Crores ... basis of free cash flow of third party is not suitable to determine correct value of shares for the purpose of provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer had given various reasons to doubt share premium collected by the assessee for allotment

Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2285/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

capital receipt and hence not chargeable to tax in the hands of company. The Finance Act, 2012 has inserted clause (viib) of section 56(2) w.e.f. 1.4.2013 providing that: 'where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year, from

DCIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2273/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. M/S Bioworth India Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 679/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, C.A by RevenueFor Respondent: Shri K Sankar Ganesh, JCIT (DR) by

Section 133(6)Section 37

deserves to be deleted. 5.8 It is also relevant to mention that, it was only by the Finance Act, 2010, that provision of Section 56(2)(viia) was then inserted by the Legislature and therein the 'book value' method was prescribed for valuation of the adequacy of consideration paid ... purchaser for acquiring shares of an unquoted company. The provisions of Section 56(2)(viia) was made effective from 01.06.2010 and was therefore applicable from AY 201112 and onwards. It is further submitted that Section 56(2)(viia) brings to tax the difference between the price at which unquoted shares

Mehul Jadavji Shah, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1380/MUM/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.191/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1380/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Mehul Jadavji Shah बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) 1301, 13Th Floor, Peninsula Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Vs. Business Park, Tower-B Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Senapati Bapat Marg, Road, Mumbai-400020. Lower Parel (W), Mumbai- 400013. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajps1654H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sukhsagar Syal Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane (DR)

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

However, the AO was not satisfied with the reply and documents submitted by the assessee. 7. According to the AO, as per Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act, wherein an individual receives any sum of money without consideration, the aggregate value of which exceeds Rs.50,000/-, needs ... spouse of the person referred to in items (B) to (F); and 11. From a perusal of the aforesaid provision of law (section 56(2)(vii) of the Act), it is clear that if an assessee (individual or HUF) receives from any person or persons after first day of October

Mehul Jadavji Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC- 7 (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 191/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane (DR)

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

Mrs. Jyoti R. Raut, New Panvel vs. Dy CIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 370/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

grandmother in her gift deed as well as in her affidavit. Hence, the same would be exempt from tax in terms of Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act as the same falls within the meaning of “relative”. It is not in dispute that what is received as gift

ITO -6(1) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Arm Infra & Utilities Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1720/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Jay Bhansali, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Singa, D.R

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

erred in ignoring the fact that while completing the original assessment under section 143(3), the A.O. had not examined the applicability of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(NFAC) has erred in not appreciating ... fact that section 56(2)(viib) of the Act is applicable on hybrid instrument. 3. The Appellant prays that the order of the CIT(Appeals) on the above ground be set aside and that of the AO be restored. 4. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground