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)

ITO - 16(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ashwin M. Savani, Mumbai

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

ITA 6143/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarincome Tax Officer-16(1)(1) Shri Ashwin M. Savani Room No. 436A, 4Th Floor 5B Feltham House Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 10 Jn Heredia Road, Mumbai 400020 Ballard Pier, Mumbai 400001 Pan – Aafps1656P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Neha ThakurFor Respondent: Ms. Rupal Vora
Section 56(2)Section 69

Harshadrai Chaturdas Patel, Kolhapur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2 (2), Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1781/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1781/Pun/2017 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 वष"

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli
Section 56(2)(v)

Sushil Chand Soni, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 44, Kolkata

ITA 833/KOL/2018[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2018AY 2007-08
Section 56(2)(v)

Nirmal Chand Soni, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 44, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 832/KOL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Nirmal Chand Soni....................…..…….……………………..…………………………………..……….……..Appellant 28, Barrackpore Trunk Road Kolkata – 700 072 [Pan : Arlps 4328 R] Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-44, Kolkata.......……...……………….......Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sushil Chand Soni......................…..…….……………………..…………………………………..……….……..Appellant 28, Barrackpore Trunk Road Kolkata – 700 072 [Pan : Asmps 0452 Q] Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-44, Kolkata…...……...……………….......Respondent

Section 250

ACIT, Chennai vs. Vatsala Santhosh Kamat, Chennai

ITA 174/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. Murali Mohan, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(v)

Kulbushan Dhanpal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4175/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu: (A.Y : 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri K.R. LakshminarayananFor Respondent: Ms. Beena Santosh
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(v)

Mr. Naveen Kumar Dixit, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 1631/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri L.P. Sahu & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. Satish Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(v)Section 68

Rani Lalchand Kalro, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the ground related to the addition of gift of Rs

ITA 7625/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Prakash K. Jotwani (AR)For Respondent: Shri B. S. Bist (DR)
Section 253Section 68

Ramesh Jhaveri (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 21(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 4981/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4981/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Ramesh Jhaveri (Huf), बनधम/ Income Tax Officer, Smruti Building, Range - 21(3)(3), Bandra, Mumbai Vs. 4Th Floor, Plot No.16, Road No.5, Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai – 400 056 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan :Aaahr4425E अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee By Shri Anuj Kishnadwala प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Revenue By Shri B S Bist सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am This Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai, Dated 04.07.2014 For A.Y. 2006-07 On Following Grounds: “1. The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Income Of Rs.82,39,653/- Being Gift Of India Millennium Deposit Received As Unexplained Credit Under Section 68 Of The I. T. Act, 1961. 2 2. It Is Respectfully Submitted That Proceeds Of India Millennium Deposit Cash Not Be Brought To Tax In The Hands Of Appellant By Invoking Provisions Of Section 56(2)(V) Of The I.T. Act, 1961.” 2. The Issue Raised In This Appeal Is Against The Confirming The Addition Of Rs.82,39,653/- By Ld. Cit(A) By Upholding The Action Of The Ao Of Treating The Gift Of Indian Millennium Deposit (Hereinafter Called As „Imd‟) Bond As Unexplained Credit U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Ground No.2 Is With Regard To Raising The Issue Of India Millennium Deposit Cash Not Be Brought To Tax In The Hands Of Appellant By Invoking Provisions Of Section 56(2)(V) Of The Act.

Section 10(15)(iid)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(v)Section 68

Nilesh Jhaveri (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 21(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 4980/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shivaji B. Ghode
Section 10(15)Section 10(15)(iid)Section 56Section 56(2)(v)Section 68

ACIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Rakesh Kumar Garodia, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4528/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm Acit 24(3), Shri Rakesh Kumar Garodia, Room No.413,7Th Floor, Vs. ¾ Govind Nagar, Pawan Baug Road, Bkc, Bandra (E), Malad (West), Mumbai-400061. Mumbai-400051. Pan/Gir No.: Aaapg8736D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh(AR)For Respondent: Shri Nitin R. Waghmode (DR)
Section 10(42)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(v)

DCIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Ambalal Kishorbhai Patel, Mumbai

ITA 3909/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. Morya PratapFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Parikh & Haresh P
Section 56(2)(v)

Mr. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2212/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Apr 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh.D.V. Taneja, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jain, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 56(2)(v)

Seema Dhingra, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 33, Mumbai

In the result, appeal stands allowed

ITA 2923/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Kishore K. PoddarFor Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 153ASection 56(2)(v)Section 68

Commissioner of Income Tax ¿¿¿VII vs. Neera Bhandari

The appeal is dismissed

ITA-162/2013HC Delhi22 Mar 2013

Bench: The Appellate Tribunal On The Following Grounds: - “1. The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of `1,07,25,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Short Term Capital Gains. 2. The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of `6,72,910/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Income From House Property.”

For Appellant: Mr Sanjeev Rajpal, Sr. Standing CounselFor Respondent: Mr Satyen Sethi, Adv
Section 54ESection 56(2)(v)

Commissioner of Income Tax –VII vs. Neera Bhandari

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/162/2013HC Delhi22 Mar 2013

Bench: The Appellate Tribunal On The Following Grounds: - “1. The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of `1,07,25,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Short Term Capital Gains. 2. The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of `6,72,910/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Income From House Property.”

For Appellant: Mr Sanjeev Rajpal, Sr. Standing CounselFor Respondent: Mr Satyen Sethi, Adv
Section 54ESection 56(2)(v)

Jasjiwan Kaur

ITA/161/2011HC Delhi30 May 2012
For Appellant: Ms Sonia MathurFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal
Section 56(2)(v)

CIT-I Chandigarh vs. Saranpal Singh

ITA/294/2010HC Punjab & Haryana06 Oct 2010
Section 260ASection 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(v)