DCIT CC-8(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SANJANA CRYOGENIC STORAGES LTD, MUMBAI
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made on account of buy-back of shares, interest expenditure, and written-off loans. The buy-back was at a price lower than the fair market value, and the loans were written off as bad debts.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the buy-back of own shares did not result in the receipt of 'property' under Section 56(2)(x). It also found that interest-free advances were made from surplus own funds and that the written-off loans arose from a regular lending business.
What were the issues?
Whether the buy-back of own shares at a price lower than FMV is taxable under Section 56(2)(x), whether interest disallowance for advances is justified, and whether written-off loans qualify as bad debts from a business activity.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 56(2)(x),Section 36(1)(iii),Section 36(1)(vii),Section 36(2)(i)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘F’ BENCH
PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 30.12.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai [“CIT(A)”], for the Assessment Year 2022-23, arising out of the assessment order dated 30.03.2025 passed under section 2 Sanjana Cryogenic Storages Ltd. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). In the grounds of appeal, the Revenue has challenged the relief granted by the learned CIT(A) principally on the following issues: (i) deletion of addition of ₹43,32,82,200 made under section 56(2)(x) on account of the alleged difference between the fair market value of shares and the consideration pa
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 56(2)(x)
- M/S Mama Foods, Alwar vs ACIT, Central Circle, AlwarITA 1311/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Satpal Sethi, Bilaspur vs Income Tax Officer 2(1), BilaspurITA 539/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Satpal Sethi, Bilaspur vs Income Tax Officer 2(1), BilaspurITA 539/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Gautam Kumar Singh, Etawah vs ITO, Ward 2(2)(5), EtawahITA 256/AGR/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Renu Kumari, Ecc Flat vs ITO Ward 1(1), JamshedpurITA 19/RAN/2026[2018-2019]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2018-2019
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Jitin Batra Proprietor Of M/S. Dreamz Conference And Event Management Group vs. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii / Avato Ward 60 & Ors.Delhi · 7 Oct 2026
- Madhusudan Saraogi vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Revenue, Howrah And Kadamtala Charge And Ors.Calcutta · 7 Oct 2026
- Neeraj Massey vs. Assistant CommissionerUttarakhand · 7 Oct 2026
- Padu Paraja vs. The Commnr. Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 7 Oct 2026
- The Lead Factory vs. The Assistant Commissoner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 7 Oct 2026