“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)

Mange Ram, Gurugram vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 710/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Mange Ram, Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income H. No. 261, Main Pataudi Tax, Faridabad, Road, Near Hanuman Temple, Village Garoli Khurd, P.O.- Basai, Gurugram, Haryana Pan: Amwpr7462B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Suraj Bhan Nian, Adv., Sh. Mahfuzur Rahman, Ca Department By Ms. Amish S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 15.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [In Short, The “Pcit”], Faridabad’S Order Dated 04.12.2023 Having Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023-24/1058449758(1), Involving Proceedings Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Herd Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. It Emerges During The Course Of Hearing That The Sole Substantive Issue Between The Parties Is That Of Correctness Of The Learned Lower Authorities’ Action Assessing The Assessee’S Interest Component Of Land Acquisition Compensation U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, While Invoking Section 57(Iv) R.W.S. 56(1)(A) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The Act. 3. Learned Sr. Dr Representing The Department Vehemently Argued That The Instant Issue Is No More Res Integra In Light Of Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Cbdt (2020) 423 Itr 13 (P&H) As Well As Pcit Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi Huf (2024) 161 Taxmann.Com 301 (Del.) Wherein The Department Has Succeeded Before Their Lordships That The Impugned Interest Component Ought To Be Assessed As Income From “Other” Sources Only. 4. We Have Given Our Thoughtful Consideration To The Assessee’S Pleadings & Revenue’S Foregoing Vehement Contention. It Emerges That This Tribunal’S Recent Decision

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

Gurmeet Singh, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer, Panchkula

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1287/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Tribunal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 10(37)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 145B(1)Section 194LSection 2Section 2(24)Section 28Section 4Section 45(5)

from a conjoint reading of the relevant statutory provisions of the income tax after its amendment w.e.f 1/4/2010 reproduced hereinabove : (i) By inserting Section 56(2)(viii) and Section 145B(1) with effect from 1st April 2010, the Legislature introduced a specific charging mechanism mandating that interest received on compensation ... income and a clear basis of charge for interest on such compensation. (iii) It is pertinent to note that the opening words of Section 56(2)—“In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub section (1), the following incomes shall be chargeable to income

Renu Bothra, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 46, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2687/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Sima Das Biswas, Sr. DR

Section 56(2)(x)

determined the value of the property at Rs.83,68,700/-. It was the submission that consequently the AO invoked the provision of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act and had made the addition of the differential amount of Rs.18,94,800/- as the income of the assessee ... difference between the DVO’s report and the actual purchase consideration as disclosed by the assessee. It was submission that the provision of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act has been amended w.e.f 01/04/2021 whereby 5% of tolerance limit has been increased to 10%. It was the submission

Simatajvar Yusufkhan Khan, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(5), Vadodara

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 243/AHD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Us Is The Same, Arising In The Backdrop Of Identical Set Of Facts, Therefore, All The Appeals Were Taken Up Together For Hearing & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common & Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Ms. Kaushani Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

because of the disputes centered on the lands they had parted with in year 1968. These receipts clearly fall in the scope of section 56(2)(vii)(a), and the AO has rightly taxed the same under the head Income from other sources. Accordingly, the addition

Simatajvar Yusufkhan Khan, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(5), Vadodara

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 242/AHD/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Us Is The Same, Arising In The Backdrop Of Identical Set Of Facts, Therefore, All The Appeals Were Taken Up Together For Hearing & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common & Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Ms. Kaushani Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Simatajvar Yusufkhan Khan, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1(5), Vadodara

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 241/AHD/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Us Is The Same, Arising In The Backdrop Of Identical Set Of Facts, Therefore, All The Appeals Were Taken Up Together For Hearing & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common & Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Ms. Kaushani Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Simatajvar Yusufkhan Khan, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(1(5, Vadodara

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 240/AHD/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Us Is The Same, Arising In The Backdrop Of Identical Set Of Facts, Therefore, All The Appeals Were Taken Up Together For Hearing & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common & Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Ms. Kaushani Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Acid, Circle-5(1), Kolkata vs. Emami Realty Limited, Kolkata

ITA 1457/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 2Section 250Section 50CSection 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

assessee pursuant to the scheme of demerger was excessive than the value of shares allotted to the shareholders and hence he invoked Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The AO ascertained the fair value of the undertaking at Rs.412.27 crores which inter alia comprised of (a) Land at 2

Nilesh Pravinchandra Doshi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(1)(3), Mumbai, Maharashtra

ITA 8368/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarnilesh Pravinchandra Ito Ward 42(1)(3), Doshi Kautilya Bhavan, B/29, Pushpanjali Vs. Bandra Kurla Building, Jambli Gully, Complex, Bandra Borivali West, Mumbai- East, 400 092 Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Amcpd6391D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Jay Shah, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.01.2026

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

same income as originally returned. 3. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made the following additions: 1. Rs. 1,26,730/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) on account of difference between stamp duty valuation and agreement value of immovable property. 2. Rs. 7,401/- on account of difference ... reiterated the facts and placed reliance on the ground-wise explanation furnished in the paper book. It was submitted that the addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) has been made solely on account of difference 5 Nilesh Pravinchandra Doshi between the agreement value and the stamp duty valuation

Pratish Shah (HUF), Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 1113/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargshri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh C Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR

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

property was 87,81,709/-. The difference of Rs.24,57,209/- was considered as other income and added under the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 19.02.2021 at a total income of Rs.27 ... before us. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. AO has erred in not following the proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, even though the same was brought to the notice of the AO through a reply

Dipaliben M. Shah, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara

In the result, the appeals bearing IT(SS)A No

ITA 537/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarit(Ss)A No. 103 & 104/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Vs. Dipaliben M. Shah, Deputy Commissioner Of E/33, Krishnalila Society, Income-Tax, Near Bankers Hosptial, Central Circle-2, Harni Warasia Ring Road, Baroda Vadodara-390006 [Pan : Ajrps 7522 B]

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250

cash received on new admissions. 10. The Ld. CIT(A), though accepting this factual position, proceeded to treat the amounts as taxable under section 56(2)(vi) of the Act. The said provisions reads as under: 56. (1) Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from ... amounts have been received by the assessee as student fee and also offered by the Institute before the Settlement Commission, the provisions of Section 56(2)(vi) are not attracted to this case and no additions on merits is also called for. Ground No.3 12. Based on the contributions made

Sasikala Krishnasamy, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-5(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2558/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2558/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ms. Sasikala Krishnasamy, The Income Tax Officer, 1/40, Kpcm Colony, Vs. Corporate Ward 5(2), St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. Chennai -600 016. Pan: Bknpk 9425K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sundar Raman, Ca & Shri R. Srivatsan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri S. Sundar Raman, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

added as income of the assessee u/s.56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act. Therefore, an addition of Rs.10,19,908/- was made under section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the reassessment completed vide order dated 21.03.2022, assessee filed appeal before the FAA. The FAA dismissed

Sarayu Krishna Kamat, Piramal Chamber vs. DCIT Circle 22(1), Piramal Chamber Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6738/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Sampat NagapFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary (SR AR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

valuation of the property was Rs.4,55,55,939/-. So the difference amount of Rs.5,55,939/- was treated as the contravention of section 56(2) of the Act. Considering the 50% share of the assessee, half of the amount of Rs.5,55,939/- which comes to Rs.2 ... later payments was also specified therein. Therefore, it is clear that the assessee's case is squarely covered by the 1st proviso to section 56(2)(x) of the Act the stamp duty value applicable in her case would be as on the date of agreement, which is 23/08/2017, which

Ck International Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Delhi

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

ITA 677/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Satyen Sethi & A.T. PandaFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

No.22, Ecotech in law, ficer to Extn-I, Sector Ecotech-I, Greater Noida to DVO and adopt the same to compute income under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the A 5. That on the facts & circumstances of the case and the JCIT(A) has erred in directing the Assessing ... compute income under section 56(2)(vii) (b) of the Act. 6. That on the facts & circumstances of the case and the JCIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the s disallowance/adjustment under section 143(1) i ct. in law, ficer to in law, cope of sS very limited

Baba Healthcare Private Limited vs. ACIT Circle -1, Fbd

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 476/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshbaba Healthcare Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, C/O. Ipso Legal, H-35, 1St Circle-1, Floor, Jangpura Faridabad Extension, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcb7985R Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Saxena, Adv Ms. Ssumnagla Saxena, Adv Shri Dishant Sethi, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

accountant dated 9-9-2015, wherein the fair market value of the share was determined at Rs. 66 per share as required under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) read with Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules. The Learned AO, however, in respect of amounts received from Mass Securities

Income Tax Officer(E) Ward- 2(4), New Delhi, Civic Centre New Delhi vs. Prakash Sewa Trust, Paschim Vihar

ITA 4305/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

view, even the show cause notice dated 23rd August 2022 is defective in as much as even though it had reference to Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, it did not mention whether the Assessing Officer proposed to treat the stamp duty value as deemed Income of assessee under ... clause (a) or clause (b) of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. This is because both are separate provisions and under either of these two clauses the stamp duty value could be treated as deemed income. By not specifying whether Section 56(2)(x)(a) or Section 56(2

Naveen Singh, Jamshedpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Jamshedpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.413/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Naveen Singh………...…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant M-9 Old, Adityapur Jamshedpur, Jharkhand- 831013. [Pan: Adkps4229A] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur.….....…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri P. S. Paul, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 06, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 12.09.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017–18 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹43,99,340/- Under Section 139(1) Of The Act. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Accepting The Income As Declared. Subsequently, The Ao Issued A Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act After Recording Reasons & Obtaining Sanction From The Competent Authority. The Assessee Did Not Respond To The Notice Under Section 148. Thereafter, Multiple Notices Under Section 142(1) Were Issued, Including Final Opportunity Notices, Which Were Duly Served But Remained Unanswered.

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

There was difference: ₹1,29,10,000. Therefore, the AO formed a belief that the assessee had earned deemed income under section 56(2)(x) of the Act to the extent of ₹1,29,10,000, which was not offered to tax. Accordingly, reassessment proceedings were initiated, and the said ... only. since no land ownership was transferred, the assessee was only a one-third purchaser superstructure, therefore, there was no occasion to invoke section 56(2)(x) of the Act or make any addition in the hands of the assessee. In view of the above facts and legal position

Amardeep Chaudhary, Panchkula, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 Panchkula, Panchkula Haryana

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 750/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Krinwant Sahay, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.750/Chd/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Amardeep Chaudhary Ito Ward 1 Panchkula बनाम/ Vs. House No. 153, Sector-2, Ito Ward-1, Panchkula, Panchkula, Haryana - 134112 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aakpc-3432-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ : Sh. B.M. Monga & Sh. Rohit Kaura (Advocates) Appellant By ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17-12-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06- 01-2026

For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 23Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

accept the arguments of the Assessee and by noting down the provisions of Section 56(2)(viii) inserted by Finance Act No. 2 of 2009 w.e.f 1.4.2010, disallowed the claim of the Assessee and sustained the addition made by the lower authority. Against the said order ... been pointed out by Ld. DR that in the said case (supra), it has been clearly held that after insertion of section 56(2)(viii), the Assessee cannot be allowed the benefit of enhanced compensation and interest thereon in land acquisition cases. 11. We find that this ground is squarely

Kusum Chauhan, Jagadhari Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3 Yamunanagar, Jagadhari

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 1310/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Akshat Dalal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 56(2)

nature of income at the hands of assessee, that such interest can be taxed as has been made out from the provisions of Section 56 (2) (viii) also. This question was also considered in The Oriental Insurance Company Limited's case (Supra)by High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad wherein ... nature of income of the payee. It had also been observed that the interest was not made chargeable to tax even by Section 56 (2) (viii) of the Act, 1961 only that part of the interest component which deals with income from other sources. In view of this discussion

M/S. Krian Cinema Banquests Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 10(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing

ITA 4860/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagdish

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

Scrutiny.” The issue identified for examination was the receipt of a large share premium during the year, specifically to verify the applicability of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, as reflected in Part A–BS of the return of income. In terms of CBDT Instruction No. 20/2015, the scope ... establish the identity and creditworthiness of the subscribers and the genuineness of the transactions. With respect to valuation under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, the assessee furnished a valuation report issued by a registered valuer. As regards the NRI subscribers, the assessee duly complied with RBI directions