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)

DCIT, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai vs. M/S.Gimpex Limited, Chennai

Appeals stands dismissed

ITA 176/CHNY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. R. Mohan Reddy,(CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143Section 43(5)Section 43(5)(a)

M/S. Sutara Learning Foundation, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemptions, Ward-3, Bangalore

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

ITA 380/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Kavitha P., CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 234BSection 250Section 56(2)

Murugesan Shanthi, Pattukkottai vs. ITO, Ward-1, Thanjavur

ITA 180/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.180/Chny/2021 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

Bhag Kaur and Harnam Singh Zoria, Dasuya vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemptions), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 16/ASR/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar01 Mar 2023AY 2020-21

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

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12A

Virender Yadav, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 4(4), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1787/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

Section 131

Supreme Auto 9India) Pvt, Ltd, Indore vs. ITO1 (4), Indore

In the result, the appealof assesseeis partly allowed in terms indicated above

ITA 133/IND/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 68

Vimlaben Gunvantrai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 485/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, AR &For Respondent: Shri Vidhyut Trivedi, Sr. DR
Section 155(15)Section 50C(2)Section 50C(3)Section 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viii)

Smt. Kumar Gomathi, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC - 2 (3), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3417/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms.T.V.Muthu Abirami, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M.Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 56(2)

Dinesh Sharma, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-53(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 9632/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2016-17 Dinesh Sharma, Vs. Ito, 389, Masjit Moth, Ward-53(5), Ndse-2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aarps5040F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashok Sikka, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mithalesh Kr. Pandey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022 Order

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Sikka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mithalesh Kr. Pandey, Sr. DR
Section 28

ACIT Circle-16 (1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Sunil Hingorani, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6608/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)

Kamla Devi, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward-5, Hisar

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1418/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mithalesh Kr. Pandey, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 147Section 148Section 28

Sunny Rock Estates Developers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 23/KOL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpl Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal(सम" "ी राजपाल यादव उपा"" एवं "ी िगरीश अ"वाल लेखा सद" Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sunny Rock Estates & Deputy Commissioner Of Developers Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Vs. 17, Colonel Biswas Road, Kolkata. Kolkata-700019. (Pan: Aadcs6898J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Biswanath Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1037406250(1) Dated 01.12.2021 For A.Y. 2013-14 Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Dcit, Circle-1(2), Kolkata Dated 28.12.2015. 2. In The Present Appeal, Essentially There Are Two Issues Involved – One Relating To Treatment Of Interest Income Of Rs.89,73,695/- As Income From Other Sources As Against Business Income Claimed By The Assessee & Another Relating To Disallowance Of Interest Expenses Of Rs.41,06,890/- Which According To The Ld. Ao Had To Be Capitalized Towards Project Development. For These Two Issues, Assessee Has Taken

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 56(2)Section 68

Mrs Sharon Nayak vs. The Deputy Commissioner

In the result, the ITAT has

ITA/158/2017HC Karnataka16 Aug 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,M G UMA

Section 161Section 166Section 17(3)Section 260Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vi)

Vishwanath Ramchandra Panvelkar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Kalyan

ITA 7162/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Learned Cit(A) The Assessee Furnished Various Details. It Was Submitted That The Above Said Amount Of Rs. 1,77,32,218/- Represented Net Capital Introduced By Him. The Details Thereof Were Furnished As Under :

Section 2Section 56(2)Section 68

Income Tax Officer-16(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Gama Entertainment Systems Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 7175/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer-16(1)(2), M/S Gama Entertainment 436-A, Aayakar Bhavan, Systems Pvt. Ltd., M.K. Road, Vs. 103, A Wing, Sai Commercial Mumbai-400020. Centre, Gowandi Station Road, Deonar, Gowandi (East), Mumbai-400088. Pan No. Aadcg 3492 N Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Parth Navandar, Ar Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/06/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Parth Navandar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Section 68

Sh. Geeta Ram, Panchkula vs. DCIT/ITO, Ward-1, Panchkula

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

ITA 439/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Geeta Ram बनाम Dcit/Ito, Ward-1 H.No. 154, Devi Nagar, Aayakar Bhawan, Panchkula- Haryana Sector-3, Panchkula Haryana-134109 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Axipr8782R

For Appellant: Shri B.M. Monga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 28Section 56(2)Section 57

Shri Ushaben H. Ghadia, Mumbai vs. Dyc CIT -CC-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 618/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 132(1)Section 56(2)Section 68Section 80C

Sri Manoj Dash, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Bhubaneswar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 405/CTK/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.405/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Sri Manoj Dash, Vs Ito, Ward-2(3), Bhubaneswar Plot No.F/2, Amrita Residency Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aeopd 6174 N (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sovesh Ch. Mohanty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.01.2016, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Even The Case Was Called For Second Round For Hearing. Therefore, The Bench Proceeded To Dispose Off The Case After Considering The Arguments Of Ld. Dr & The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 3. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal Are As Under :- 1. For That, The Impugned Order Of Assessment Passed By The Forums Below Are Not Just & Proper Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, As Such The Additions Made Therein Are Liable To Be Deleted In The Interest Of Justice.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sovesh Ch. Mohanty, CIT-DR
Section 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 56(2)

Khoday Goverdhan, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-7(2), Hyderabad

In the result, Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 812/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2007-08 Khoday Goverdhan, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 7(2), Hydereabad. Pan – Agvpg 0534 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Tej Prakash Toshniwal Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 03/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/03/2022

For Appellant: Shri Tej Prakash ToshniwalFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 44Section 44ASection 80C

Sh. Sher Singh Rana, Solan vs. Pr.CIT-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 91/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआदेश/Order

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)