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)

Sophia Mushtaq Panirwala, G T Road Mumbai vs. ACIT, Assessment Unit, NFAC

ITA 7242/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21 Sophia Mushtaq Panirwala Vs Assistant Commissioner Of 7-D Billimoria Hosg, Income Tax, Proctor Road, Grant Road, Assessment Unit, Nfac, Mumbai - 400007 New Delhi - 110002 (Pan: Aigpp2287C) Appellant Respondent Present For: Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhujhunwala, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradipsinh Saktavat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1080505962(1) Dated 10.09.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 13.08.2022 For Ay 2020-21. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. “Whether The Id Cit-A,Nfac Was Justified By Passing The Order Without Affording Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard & Personal Hearing Despite The Admitted Facts That There Are So Many Glitches On Portal Resulting Details/Submissions Couldn'T Be Uploaded. 2. Whether The Ld Cit-A(Nfac) Was Justified By Upholding The Assessment Order On The Issue Of Invoking Section 56(2) On The Difference Of Rs.2,28,41,000/-Due To Stamp Valuation & Declared Consideration Without Considering The Nature

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhujhunwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradipsinh Saktavat, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 69