“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)

ITO 6 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Confiance Trading Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 199/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 Ito 6(2)(1), M/S. Confiance Trading 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Room No.510, 308, Adharu Industrial Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Estate, M.K. Road, Sun Mill Compound, Mumbai – 400 020 Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaccc4316L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Dharmvir, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Gaurav Kabra, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Dharmvir, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Kabra, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the AO has made addition under section 68 of the Act and not under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that in respect of excess premium received by the private limited company can be made ... under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act from A.Y. 2013-14 only. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee has even filed valuation report as per DCF method, however, the AO has not pointed out any defect or deficiency in the said report. The Ld. CIT(A) also

Dy CIT 6 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Credtalpha Alternative Investment Advisors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 7056/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishithe Dy. Commissioner Of Credtalpha Alternative Income Tax 6(2) (1) Investment Advisors Pvt Ltd Room No. 504, 8Th Floor, Ashford Centre, Aykar Bhavan Vs. Shankar Rao Narayan Marg Maharishi Karve Road , Lower Parel , Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 Pan No. Aaecc6357K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rahul SardaFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar DR

Section 56

fund. To substantiate it, assessee also submitted the registration certificate and return filed with the SEBI. It was further submitted that provisions of Section 56 (2) (viib) exempts the venture capital fund from complying with the valuation norms of the provisions of the above Section. The assessee also explained ... method is negative. Accordingly, he made an addition of ₹ 69,000,000 to the total income of the assessee Under the provisions of Section 56 (2) (viib) of the act being the value exceeding the fair market value of the shares as according to him valuation of the share

Mr. Shripad A. Shelar, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT - Cir_34(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2023/MUM/2020[203-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 54Section 56(2)(vii)

this said property has been determined by the Stamp Duty Authorities at Rs 65,15,437/-. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii), the AO added the differential amount of Rs 2,65,437/- to the income of the assessee. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant ... claim and decide as per law. 7. As regards, the second ground, the addition was made by the AO invoking the provision of section 56(2)(vii), it was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) by holding as under:- Ground Nos 5 & 6 of the appeal relate to the addition made

Varad Vinayak Realty Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 1 (3)-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection and cross appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 612/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar& Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanito, 11-3(2), Room No. 428, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ............ Appellant Vs. M/S Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd., 105, Vastushilp, Rajmata Jijabai Road, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aabcv7419A ............ Respondent C.O. No. 50/Mum/2019 In Ita No.5279/Mum/2017 (A.Y.2009-10) M/S Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd., 105, Vastushilp, Rajmata Jijabai Road, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aabcv7419A ............ Appellant Vs. Ito, 11-3(2), Room No. 428, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ............ Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. S.N. Kabra, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Pawan Chakrapani, AR

Section 68

premium but also its nature. The assessee has offered explanation simply stating that the excessive share premium is covered by the provisions of section 56(2) (viib) of the IT act 1961 and is applicable from 2013-14. The assessee company has failed to establish the interest on the value ... provision of section 68 of IT act 1961. It may also be mentioned that the assessee plea that provisions of section 56(2)(viib_) of the IT act 1961 and is applicable from AY 2013 – 14 is not acceptable as these provisions are clarification and therefore applicable to the excessive

Income Tax Officer 11(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Varad Vinayak Realty Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection and cross appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5279/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. S.N. Kabra, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Pawan Chakrapani, AR

Section 68

Humuza Consultants, Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT-19, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 726/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Humuza Consultants Vs The Principal Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Wokhardt Towers Income-Tax-19, Mumbai Bandra Kurla Complex Room No. 228, 2Nd Floor, Bandra East Matru Mandir Mumbai-400 01 Tardeo Road, Pan : Aahfh9240E Mumbai-400 007 Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Jd Mistry & Hiten Chande Respondent By Shri K.K. Mishra (Cit,Dr) Date Of Hearing 07-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement 07-01-2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi (Am):

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 68

amounting to Rs. 32,94,88,785/- as gift from three different companies. Assessee claims that it is not chargeable to tax under section 56(2) (viia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On these shares, assessee has disclosed dividend income of Rs. 131,79,55,140/-. He noted that ... revenue. It was also submitted that during assessment proceedings, assessee has contended that the share of Wokhardt Ltd were not taxable under section 56(2) (viia) of the Act as it is a share of a listed company i.e. company in which public are substantially interested. It was further submitted

I.B. Communications Network Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(1)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 623/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Sri.Nischal B, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 234BSection 56(2)(viib)

addition of INR 1,54,54,792 made by the Assessing Officer ('AO') considering share premium received as income from other sources under section 56(2)(viib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'); b) That on the facts of the case and circumstances ... failed to appreciate that the provisions of 2 M/s.IB Communications Network Private Limited section 56(2)(viib) of the Act are effective only from AY 2013- 14 and would not apply in the current case of shares issued in AY 2011-12; c) That on the facts of the case

M/S. Vectra Advanced Engineering Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2025/BANG/2018[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nitish Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K, JCIT (DR)

Section 57

leasing of equipment is only of minor items such as Cranes, Aircompressor, power generator etc. It is relevant to quote provisions of section 56(2)(iii) of the I.T.Act, which reads as follow:- “where an assessee lets on hire machinery, plant or furniture belonging to him and also buildings

Meena Verma, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-32(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 7222/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Princy Singla, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

grounds of appeal, the assessee has agitated the additions of Rs.69,70,000/- made by the Assessing Officer by invoking Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. 3. We have heard the rival submissions on the above disputes. It is the case of the assessee that the Assessing

Shri Sunil Bandacharya Joshi, Bangaloe vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(3)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2304/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.Preethi Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ananda H., Addl.CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 28Section 56Section 56(2)(v)Section 56(2)(vii)

I.T.Act. The relevant finding by the A.O. in bringing to tax the sum of Rs.60 lakh, reads as follows:- “However as per section 56(2)(v) under sub clause (g), `this clause shall not apply to any sum of money received from any trust or institution registered under section 12AA ... first appellate authority. Before the first appellate authority it was contended that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of proviso (g) to section 56(2)(vii) of the I.T.Act since the registration of BCCI u/s 12AA of the Act was not disturbed for the relevant assessment year

M/S Kottaram Agro Foods Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2853/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Smt. Jeenitha Chatarjee, A.RFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Shoury Arya, D.R

Section 224Section 44ASection 56(2)(viib)

173/354/2019- ITA-1 dated 9.8.2019 issued by CBDT, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the Startup companies have been exempted from the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, even if the addition had been made in the assessment order passed before 19.2.2019. Accordingly, the Ld. A.R. submitted that ... making the claim for the first time before us that it falls under the category of Startup company and hence the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act should not be applied to it as per the Circular issued by CBDT (referred supra). Hence there is merit

M/S Kottaram Agro Foods Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2852/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Smt. Jeenitha Chatarjee, A.RFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Shoury Arya, D.R

Section 224Section 44ASection 56(2)(viib)

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Jpm Tools Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 7281/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 132(1)Section 153A

page 66 of the order, wherein, he has recorded that with regards to valuation of share premium, the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) have been brought in statute from AY 2013-14, thus, the same is not applicable for assessments till AY 2012-13 and further, there