← 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)

Brash Steels Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(2), Faridabad

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

ITA 6181/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S Brash Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Near Ward-1(2), Neelam Flyover, Sector-20B, Faridabad, Faridabad, Haryana-121002 Haryana-121002 Pan-Aafcb0204R

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Farat Khan, Sr. DR
Section 11USection 133(6)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

partly allowed.” 4 5. He however, enhanced the income of the assessee by a sum of Rs.40,07,500/- by invoking provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act by observing as under:- 12.10 It has been found about that the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants ... well as on facts in enhancing the income of appellant assessee by sum of Rs. 40,07,500/- by invoking section 56(2)(viib) of the Act wherein rejecting the valuation method taken by appellant assessee. iv. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on facts

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Aakriti Hotels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 281/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CA
Section 153ASection 68

does not lead to any unexplained investment. Under such circumstances the said registered deed cannot be treated as incriminating document. Further provisions of section 56(2) Is not applicable to company assessee during the relevant year. Therefore, there is no specific provision under the Act to deal with such transaction

Gyanendra Tyagi, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7769/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2021AY 2012-13
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 69

page-6 of the first appellate order and submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has invoked the Gyanendra Tyagi Vs. DCIT provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(i) of the Act without giving the assessee any show cause notice in this regard and, therefore, the principle of natural justice ... impugned order, we do find force in the submission of the Ld. Authorized Representative that the Ld. CIT(A) has invoked provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(i) of the Act without giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing in this regard whereas the initial addition had been made

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. April Cottage Farms Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3300/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

company failed to submit valuation report under Rule 11UA and did not justify the share premium received in view of the provisions of Section 56(2) r.w.s. 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO determined the book value as (A-L)×PV ÷ PE as per the formula ... company, the valuation under Rule 11UA as per the DCF method is acceptable valuation method for the purpose of clause (viib) of Section 56(2). The valuation report submitted to the ld. CIT (A) as additional evidence has been accepted by the revenue and no inconsistencies in the valuation report

Brahampal Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3460/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

Section 145ASection 2Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 34Section 56Section 56(1)(viii)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viii)

above show cause notice the assessee appeared before the AO but did not make any submission. The AO referring to the provisions of section 56(2)(vii), 57(iv) and section 145A(b) of the Act by the Finance Act (No.2) 2009, which was introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2010, held that from ... interest u/s 28 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. According to him, the issue has been set at rest with the introduction of section 56(2)(viii) and 145A(b) to the I.T. Act, 1961 with effect from 01.04.2010. The interest received would be liable to tax in the year

M/S Ruchi J Oil Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT(A)Ujjain, Ujjain

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)Section 92C

after proper application of mind, he did not make any addition u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act because the provision of section 56(2)(viib) are not applicable to non-resident. After proper enquiries, assessment order was passed U/S 143(3) of the Act, not only having detailed discussion ... erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue because the AO did not commit any error, whatsoever, by ignoring the provisions contained in Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act while completing the assessment, as alleged. 2.That the Ld. Pr. Comm. Of Income Tax erred in law in not considering

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Technico Industries Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 5204/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Technico Industries Pvt. Ltd., Circle-25(1), 103, Pratap Bhawan, Cr Building, Ip Estate, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. Near Indian Express Building, New Delhi. Pan: Aaact4445P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aditya Kumar, Ca & Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Mrs Aashna Paul, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.03.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 31St March, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-9, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Sheet Metal Components & Tools & Dies. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29Th September, 2011 Declaring ‘Nil’ Income. The Said Return Was Revised On 14Th September, 2012 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.3,61,68,075/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao, On Perusal Of The Balance Sheet Filed By The Assessee, Noted That The Assessee Company Has Issued 14,72,000 Equity Shares At A Premium Of Rs.115. From The Various Details Furnished By The Assessee, The Ao Noted That The Assessee Has Issued Shares To The Following Persons/Parties:-

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Mrs Aashna Paul, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)

required to prove the source, but, also the source of the source. Further, according to the AO, the amendment to the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) and (viib) are applicable to the facts of the present case. The AO further noted that introduction of proviso to section 68 w.e.f ... assessee has to not only prove the source, but, also the source of the source. The AO further noted that amendment to the section 56(2)(viia) and (viib) was made to prevent flow of unaccounted money into regular business channel by using dubious mechanism by routing funds through various

Rockland Diagnostics Services P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-21(3), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 316/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: The Ld. Cit (A) Was Dismissed & Now The Assessee Has Approached This Tribunal

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

called ‘the Act’) and was later selected under the limited scrutiny to examine Large Share Premium received during the year. (Verifying applicability of Section 56(2)(viib)). The assessment was completed at an income of Rs.1,11,91,703/- after making addition of Rs.1,07,82,453/- u/s 56(2 ... submitted that the main issue arising in the appeal is whether the valuation as per this method prescribed under section 56 (2)(viib) of the Act could be disregarded on mere assumptions/surmises on the ground that the valuation of equity shares was based on projection of revenue which

Apollo Fiege Integrated Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1), New Delhi

In the result, these appeals are dismissed

ITA 1533/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Pulkit Verma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT- DR
Section 56(2)(viib)

/De/2018 and 1533/Del/2018. Apollo Fiege Integrated Logistics P. Ltd. ITA No:- 1532/Del/2018 “The appellant respectfully submits as under: Disallowance of share premium under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act- INR 4,59,45,168 1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case ... case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of INR 4,59,45,168 under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, being the amount of share premium received by the Appellant from its holding company M/s Apollo Logisolutions Limited. 3. Under the facts

Apollo Fiege Integrated Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1), New Delhi

In the result, these appeals are dismissed

ITA 1532/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Pulkit Verma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT- DR
Section 56(2)(viib)

/De/2018 and 1533/Del/2018. Apollo Fiege Integrated Logistics P. Ltd. ITA No:- 1532/Del/2018 “The appellant respectfully submits as under: Disallowance of share premium under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act- INR 4,59,45,168 1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case ... case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of INR 4,59,45,168 under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, being the amount of share premium received by the Appellant from its holding company M/s Apollo Logisolutions Limited. 3. Under the facts