Section 56(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.92

Section 56(2)(iii) 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)(iii) is CIT v. Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd. (249 ITR 47), cited in 57 of the 32 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 56(2)(iii)

CIT v. Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd.
249 ITR 47 · 2001 · High Court
57
citing judgments

Income from letting out immovable property, even with ancillary services, is taxable as 'Income from House Property' if the dominant intention is to exploit the property itself, not to run a complex business providing integrated services. The classification depends on the assessee's primary object in exploiting the property.

Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai and Another
7 SCC 421 · 2017 · Reported
26
citing judgments

The decision in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. [2017] 7 SCC 421 is referred to in the context of the rule of consistency, particularly concerning the application of provisions related to income calculation and disallowances.

M/s. Radhasoami Satsang, Saomi Bagh, Agra v. Commissioner of Income Tax
1 SCC 659 · 1992 · Supreme Court
23
citing judgments

The consistent treatment of a matter across different assessment years should not be changed without new facts justifying the change.

CIT v. Goel Builders
331 ITR 344 · 2011 · High Court
12
citing judgments

The principle of consistency in tax matters should be followed, meaning the revenue should not take a contrary view if there is no material change in circumstances justifying it.

Sri Hanuman Sugar & Industries Ltd. v. CIT
266 ITR 106 · 2004 · High Court
11
citing judgments

An assessee's intention regarding a temporary vs. final parting with a factory is a factual determination. This determination is not subject to res judicata, allowing authorities to reach different conclusions in subsequent years based on new evidence.

Jay Metal Industries (P) Ltd. v. CIT
396 ITR 194 · 2017 · High Court
7
citing judgments
ENN ZEN Enterprises (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT: 45 ITRT) 382 (Chandigarh ITAT)
119 TTJ 421 · ITAT
3
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 56(2)(iii)