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

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.92

Section 56(2)(v) 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)(v) is Satendra Kaushik v. ITO (106 Taxmann.com 244), cited in 3 of the 38 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 56(2)(v)

Satendra Kaushik v. ITO
106 Taxmann.com 244 · 2019 · Reported
3
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 56(2)(v)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Saloni Punihani, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed in ITA No

ITA 3366/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2026AY 2020-21
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153(2)Section 56Section 56(2)(v)Section 69(1)

Amit Katyal, New Delhi vs. Piyush Kumar Kothari, DCIT, CC-27, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7370/DEL/2025[AAEPK4669H]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 May 2026

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 127(1)Section 131Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

Amit Katyal, New Delhi vs. Piyush Kumar Kothari, DCIT, CC-27, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7369/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 May 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 127(1)Section 131Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

Amit Katyal, New Delhi vs. Piyush Kumar Kothari, DCIT, CC-27, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7368/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 May 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 127(1)Section 131Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

Desh Raj Jakhar, Gordhanpura vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Neem Ka Thana

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

ITA 1261/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shaffi Mohd. AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT -DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 5Section 69

Assistent Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Nirmal Chand Soni, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1362/KOL/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 250

Sarita Konda, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 2/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.02/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sarita Konda Camelia Flat No.15, Block A01, 4Th Floor, Greenville City, Boriyakala, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aukps1814J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Tarannum Verma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(v)

Atish Ananda Barne, Pune vs. Pravin Agrawal, Pune

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

ITA 1707/PUN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jan 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(v)

Sheela Daniel, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(3)(4), Mumbai, Bkc Bandra (East)

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 2675/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pravin M Chavan (SRDR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234Section 250oSection 271Section 56(2)(v)

Sarita Konda, Bhilai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 62/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 62/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sarita Konda Street No.09, Kohka Road, Shanti Nagar, Bhilai (C.G.) Pan : Aukps1814J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 68

Sh. Harbans Singh. S/O. Sh. Major Singh, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-II(1), Bathinda

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

ITA 249/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 56(2)(v)Section 69A

Sri. Nagarajan Ramachandran, Trivandrum vs. The Pr CIT, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

ITA 96/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajasekhar (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 198Section 263Section 56(2)(v)

The ITO, Ward-3(1)(5), Baroda vs. Dr. Satish Natwarlal. Shah, Baroda

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 379/AHD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Samir Tekriwal, CIT/DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)

Kamaldeep Kaur, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 48(4), New Delhi

Appeal are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1832/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 148Section 56

Harish Chander, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Faridabad

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1910/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(v)

Ananya Ajay Mittal, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 6 (4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6950/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Piyush ChhajedFor Respondent: Ms. Sailaja Rai
Section 132(1)Section 6

Vinay Kumar Konda, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -8(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 533/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasadassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Vinay Kumar Konda, The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward -8(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Ajnpk8150F. (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram. Revenue By: Shri Sathiya Sivaprakasam Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2022 Date Of Order: 10/02/2022 O R D E R This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi, Dt.15.12.2021 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Only Grievance In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.5,96,194/- As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri Sathiya Sivaprakasam
Section 143(3)Section 69A

Venkat Reddy Jajapuram, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-9(3) (Now Ward 9(4), Hyd, Hyderabad

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

ITA 941/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghu Ram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 56(2)(v)Section 69

Sheela Daniel, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 2811/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2811/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Ms. Sheela Daniel बिधम/ Ito 21(2)(4) 21, Nupur, Near Jewel Bandra (E), Mumbai-51. Vs. Nursing Home, Gulmohar Cross Road No-5, Jvpd Scheme, Mumbai-400049. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aefpd6933C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue By: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/07/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/07/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 09.03.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -38, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2006- 07. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(v)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-23(3), Mumbai vs. Vishal Dilip Sankhe, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4376/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra, DRFor Respondent: Shri Ritu Kamal Kishore, AR
Section 292BSection 54FSection 56(2)(v)Section 56(2)(vii)