Section 56(2) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.92

Section 56(2) 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(2) is Global Logic India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (117 Taxmann.com 39), cited in 11 of the 166 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 56(2)

Global Logic India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
117 Taxmann.com 39 · 2020 · Reported
11
citing judgments

A company undergoing restructuring activity during the relevant financial year may be rejected as a comparable in transfer pricing analysis, as such events can impact its profitability.

Prism Cement Ltd. v. JCIT
101 ITD 103 · 2006 · ITAT
10
citing judgments

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) decision in Prism Cement Ltd. v. JCIT (2006) is cited for the proposition that the nature of a transaction involving non-convertible debentures (NCDs) may be distinguished from the forfeiture of a loan when determining tax implications, and that a CIT(A) might err in deleting additions without further inquiry if the apparent is not the real.

CIT(LTU) & Another v. IBM Global Services India Pvt Ltd.
429 ITR 386 · 2020 · High Court
10
citing judgments

If statutory authorities responsible for overseeing a particular Act have not taken any action, the assessing officer cannot allege a violation of that Act.

177 TAXMAN 35 (GUJ) (g) Commissioner of Income-tax-V v. Real Time Marketing (P.) Ltd.
173 Taxmann 41 · 2008 · High Court
9
citing judgments
Khinvasara Investment (P.) Ltd. v. JCIT, SR-5, Pune
110 ITD 198 · 2008 · ITAT
7
citing judgments
JCIT v. Saheli Leasing & Industries Ltd.
324 ITR 170 · 2010 · Supreme Court
7
citing judgments
Vikram Krishna v. PCIT
114 Taxmann.com 197 · 2020 · Supreme Court
6
citing judgments
DepakFertilisers and Petrochemicals Copn. Ltd. v. DCIT
118 ITD 546 · 2009 · ITAT
6
citing judgments
16 (Mum. Trib.) (viii) Hackett Group (India) Ltd. v. DCIT
132 Taxmann.com 220 · 2021 · High Court
6
citing judgments
Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. ACIT(E) 120171
369 ITR 323 · High Court
6
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 56(2)

Satya Prakash Soni, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, Lucknow

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

ITA 133/LKW/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow23 Jun 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 Satya Prakash Soni, Vs Income Tax Officer B-17, Indira Nagar, Lucknow Pan: Anqps7187P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 5.12.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee That Were Filed Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S. 143(3) For The A.Y. 2013-14 On 27.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because The Entire Assessment Proceedings Commencing With Recording Of Reason To Believe & Concluding With Passing Of The Assessment Order Dated 27.03.2022 Are Void Ab Initio As The Very Formation Of The Assessment Stands Vitiated On Account Of Jurisdictional Infirmity & Breach Of Mandatory Procedure & Consequently, The Said Assessment Order Deserved To Be Held As Illegal, Bad In Law & Without Jurisdiction. 2. Because The Id. "Cit(A)" Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Quashing The Assessment Order Even Though The Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, In Pursuance Of Which The Assessment Proceedings U/S 147 Were Initiated, Having Been Issued After Expiry Of Six Years, Was Barred By Limitation. 3. Because The Id. "Cit(A)" Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Quashing The Assessment Order By Holding The Same As Illegal, Bad In Law & Without Jurisdiction Even Though Reason To Believe Was Recorded On Incorrect Facts.

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153Section 155Section 250Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)