Which cases are most cited on Section 56(1)?

Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona (89 Taxmann.com 127) — 130 citing judgments; CIT v. Nirbheram Deluram (91 Taxmann 181) — 35 citing judgments; DIT v. Vishwa Jagriti Mission (262 CTR 558) — 19 citing judgments; Mahimananda Mishra v. ACIT (343 ITR 350) — 13 citing judgments; CIT v. Nirbheram Deluram (297 ITR 72) — 7 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 56(1)?

BharatTax indexes 131 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 56(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 56(1) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.92

Section 56(1) falls under section 56 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 92 (Income from other sources) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 92 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 56(1) is Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona (89 Taxmann.com 127), cited in 130 of the 131 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 56(1)

Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona

89 Taxmann.com 127 · 2018 · Supreme Court

130

citing judgments

The claim of depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act for assets used by charitable trusts is permissible, affirming the Bombay High Court's view that such a claim does not amount to a 'double benefit'.

CIT v. Nirbheram Deluram

91 Taxmann 181 · 1997 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) can make enhancements to an assessment during appellate proceedings, provided such enhancements do not amount to introducing an entirely new head of income.

DIT v. Vishwa Jagriti Mission

262 CTR 558 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on capital assets for charitable trusts even if expenditure was allowed as deduction, as long as it doesn't amount to double deduction. The principles of commercial accountancy apply when computing business income.

Mahimananda Mishra v. ACIT

343 ITR 350 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

Deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) is taxable in the hands of an individual shareholder, not in the hands of a firm in which the shareholder is a partner, if the firm itself is not a shareholder in the lending company.

CIT v. Nirbheram Deluram

297 ITR 72 · 2008 · High Court

citing judgments

CIT v. Allahabad Bank Ltd.

73 ITR 745 · 1969 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Commissioner of 563, Bhopal Fire & General Insurance Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax

53 ITR 108 · 1964 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry

251 ITR 868 · 2001 · High Court

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 56(1)

Sindhu Farms Pvt Ltd, Gurugram vs. DCIT, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8194/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 Sindhu Farms Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Gurugram Zila Vikas Bhawan, 7Th 1St Floor, Room No. 3-4, 702 Part-B Floor Signature Tower, Tower- A Rohtak, Haryana -124001 Sector-30 Gurgaon -122003 Pan No. Aagcs8737F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 243ASection 56(1)

Him Properties & Developers Private Limited, Lucknow vs. DCIT/ACIT, Lucknow

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

ITA 345/LKW/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 May 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Him Properties & Developers Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., 340/35, Bhawani Ganj, Income Tax-3, Lucknow-New Near Indare Wali Maszid, Chowk, Lucknow, U.P. Pan: Aabch7552E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. R.P. Tiwari, Ca Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.05.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 3.01.2025, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) For The A.Y. 2016-17 On 6.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. That The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition By Treating The Share Application Money Of ₹ 44,96,000/- As Income Under Section 56(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, Despite The Assessee Having Consistently Disclosed The Amount As Share Application Money Pending Allotment In Its Books Of Account & Return Of Income, Reflecting It As A Capital Receipt. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of ₹44,96,000/- Under Section 56(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Without Appreciating That The Said Amount Represents Opening Balance Of Share Application Money & Was Not Received During The Year Under Consideration

For Appellant: Sh. R.P. Tiwari, CAFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(1)

Premal P Pandya, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee dismissed

ITA 195/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 May 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years: 2022-23

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234DSection 56(2)(x)

Afzal Ahmad, Lucknow vs. Faceless Assessment Unint, NFAC

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 265/LKW/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 May 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147Section 56(1)Section 68

Ashok Gupta, Yamuna Nagar vs. Ward 52(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 8457/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasadassessment Year 2012-13 Ashok Gupta, House Vs. Ward 52 (5) No.173, Yamuna Nagar New Delhi Haryana 135001 Pan No.Afzpg1779E

Section 56(1)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 32, Kolkata vs. Roselife Enclave LLP, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1666/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Duddhewala &For Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 56(1)

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

Smt. Urmila Dhelia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, as above

ITA 4259/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(vi)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)