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
35
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
19
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
13
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
7
citing judgments
CIT v. Allahabad Bank Ltd.
73 ITR 745 · 1969 · Supreme Court
7
citing judgments
Commissioner of 563, Bhopal Fire & General Insurance Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax
53 ITR 108 · 1964 · Supreme Court
5
citing judgments
CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry
251 ITR 868 · 2001 · High Court
4
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 56(1)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 23(3), Mumbai vs. Ramona Pinto, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 582/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktujit Dey () & Shri Rajesh Kumar ()

Section 28Section 56Section 56(1)

Crescent Payments P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 6(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 559/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2021AY 2012-13
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 28

Shri Dinesh Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5-4, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1107/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1107/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Shri Dinesh Sharma, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. Plot No. 529, Gali No. 9, Rishi Ward 5(4), Galav Nagar, Galta Gate, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Atups 7924 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : None Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 16/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 14/07/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)- 2, Jaipur Dated 25/06/2019 For The A.Y. 2011-12, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee. “1. That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Passing The Order Which Is Bad In Law & Facts. Hence Liable To Be Quashed. 2. That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Imposing/Confirming Penalty Of Rs. 5000/- U/S 271F Without Considering The Facts Of The Case. Hence The Addition Is Liable To Be Deleted. 3. The Appellant Prays Your Honors Indulgence To Add, Amend Or Alter All Or Any Of The Grounds Of The Appeal On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 147Section 271FSection 44ASection 56(1)

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. Shri Saroj Kumar Poddar, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 2406/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble]

Section 250

M/S. Rao Computers Consultants Pvt Ltd vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (OSD)

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA/711/2017HC Karnataka26 May 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 260Section 260A

Asst CIT CIT 1, Thane vs. Bayer Sheets India P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2170/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Us At The Time Of Hearing. The Same Is Reckoned As A Statement Made From The Bar. Accordingly, The Ground No. 2 Raised By The Revenue Is Allowed.

Section 143(3)Section 56(1)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 78

ITO 7(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Heckyl Technolgies P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3087/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 Ito-7(1)(3) M/S Heckyl Technologies Pvt.Ltd. Unit No.1002, 10Th Floor Room No.11, Ground Floor Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, W, Supreme Business Park Mumbai- 400020 Hiranandani Garden Powai, Mumbai-400 076

For Appellant: Shri Piyus ChhajjedFor Respondent: Shri R.Bhupathi
Section 100Section 143(3)Section 56(1)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68Section 78(2)

ITO 5 (2)(3), Mumbai vs. Millionaire Commodiities P.Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3268/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2012-13 The Ito-5(2)(3), M/S.Millionaire Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai A-32, Haji Allarakha Building, Vs. 3Rd , 9Th Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai [Pan : Aahcm3086G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D.G.PansariFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Mehta &
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 56(1)Section 68

M/S. Samwon Precision Mould Mfg. (India) Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 1594/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1244/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ito Vs Samwon Precision Mould Mfg. Ward 22(2) India Pvt. Ltd., 1/24, Ground New Delhi. Floor, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcs8926K

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Samwon Precision Mould Mfg. India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1244/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1244/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ito Vs Samwon Precision Mould Mfg. Ward 22(2) India Pvt. Ltd., 1/24, Ground New Delhi. Floor, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcs8926K

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

New Era Ad vs. Ors Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai

ITA 5360/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi & Ms. DinkleFor Respondent: Shri B. Srinivas (DR)
Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 56Section 78

ITO 15(2)2, Mumbai vs. New Era Advisors P Ltd, Navi Mumbai

ITA 3861/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi & Ms. DinkleFor Respondent: Shri B. Srinivas (DR)
Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 56Section 78

Hazaribag Ranchi Expressway Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6696/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negihazaribagh Ranchi Vs. Ito-14(2)(1) 4Th Floor, Expressway Ltd. The Il&Fs Financial Center Aaykar Bhawan Plot No.C-22, G Block M.K.Road Bkc, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No.Aacch2490J Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 234BSection 56(1)

DCIT 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Brand Marketing (India) P.Ltde, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue is

ITA 780/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahaveer Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 56(1)

M/S. Ma Sharda Educational Society, Ghaziabad vs. Addl. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the additions

ITA 3089/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(21)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(iia)

DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Goldman Sachs India P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 730/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.730/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dy. Commissioner Of बिधम/ M/S. Goldman Sachs (I) Income-Tax 1(1)(2) Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 579, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. 951-A, Rational House, Road, Mumbai-400020. Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Mumbai-400025. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp2448J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Laxmi Vora Prasad Dude Assessee By: Shri Jehangir Mistry सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/07/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/10/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.11.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir MistryFor Respondent: Shri Laxmi Vora Prasad Dude
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 56Section 56(1)Section 68Section 78

M/S Goldway Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4-4, Jaipur

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

ITA 561/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Oct 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar,, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajender Singh, (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 56(1)

National Textile Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee dismissed

ITA 2471/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar Anand, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K. Hauthang, Sr. D.R
Section 14Section 2(24)Section 5Section 56(1)

ITO (It) 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Nikhil S. Goklaney, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2542/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak, DRFor Respondent: S/ Shri Hiro Rai
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 23Section 23(1)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-24(1), Mumbai vs. Anil Gulabdas Shah, Mumbai

ITA 5134/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5134/Mum/2017 & Co. No. 319/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit – 24(1) Shri Anil Gulabdas Shah, Room No. 604, 6Th Floor, B-1601, Titanium Towers बनाम/ 16Th Floor, Jai View Chsl Piramal Chamber, Parel Vs. Sahakar Nagar, Andheri (W) Mumbai. Mumbai – 400 058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bmfps-8959-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)/Respondent (""थ" / Respondent)/Appellant : Revenue By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore- Ld. Dr Assessee By : Shri Anil G. Shah – Assessee-In-Person सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 05/08/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 09/08/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year [In Short Referred To As ‘Ay’] 2012-13 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals)-36, Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-36/It-217/Acit-24(1)/15-16 Dated 26/05/2017 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: -

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore- Ld. DR
Section 143(3)