ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, THANE, THANE vs. KANCHAN MARKHEDKAR, THANE
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer made additions under Section 56(2)(vii)(c) by valuing shares of underlying companies at fair market value, instead of the shares of holding companies actually purchased by the assessee. The AO considered the transactions as a colourable device to acquire shares at a significantly lower value.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in applying the amended Rule 11UA retrospectively and in valuing the underlying company shares instead of the holding company shares. The valuation should have been based on the book value of assets as per the unamended Rule 11UA.
What were the issues?
Whether the AO correctly applied Section 56(2)(vii)(c) by valuing shares of underlying companies instead of holding companies, and whether the amended Rule 11UA was applied retrospectively.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 56(2)(vii)(c),Section 153A,Section 132,Section 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
आदेश / ORDER PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM: These appeals are filed by the Revenue against the separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Pune-11 [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] for A.Ys. 2015–16 and 2016–17, both dated 08.11.2024, arising out of the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act dated 31.03.2022.Since the issues involved in both the appeals are identical and arise out of common set of facts, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of
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)(vii)(c)
- Jonnalagadda Venkata Giri, Visakhapatnam vs ACIT, Central Circle-1, VisakhapatnamITA 665/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2014-15
- Sarita Shetty, Bengaluru vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 2053/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed24 Aug 2026AY 2015-16
- Mona Amarchand Narang, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer Ward 23(2)(1), MumbaiITA 1537/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed6 Jul 2026AY 2016-17
- Puneet Jain, Lucknow vs DCIT/ACIT-3, LucknowITA 775/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed27 May 2026AY 2015-16
- ACIT, Central Circle-1, Thane vs Kanchan Rakesh Markhedkar, ThaneITA 784/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed15 May 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Smti Gollo Sarah vs. The Union Of INDIA And 3 OrsGauhati · 8 Oct 2026
- Abhiram Ayodhyanath Swami vs. Union Of INDIA, Dept. Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance And OrsBombay · 8 Oct 2026
- Shankar Prasad Gupta vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 8 Oct 2026
- Balaram Halder vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 8 Oct 2026
- Biswa Nath Mondal vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 8 Oct 2026