SHALBY LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1005/AHD/2023Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 March 2026AY 2015-16Bench: Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee deliberately used the old company name for filings, misrepresenting the transaction. The valuation of shares was not substantiated as per Rule 11UA, and the investor lacked the financial capacity for the investment. The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee company, engaged in construction and development, received a substantial investment in shares with a significant premium from M/s MG Finvest Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer (AO) questioned the valuation of these shares and the genuineness of the transaction, leading to an addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO under Section 68 for share premium is justified when the valuation is disputed and the investor's genuineness is questionable? Whether the assessment order is bad in law due to the use of the old company name post-amalgamation?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 68,Section 56(2)(vii),Section 56(2)(viib),Section 11UA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH

Before: Dr. BRR Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, A.R
For Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-D.R

Per Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member:

This is an appeal filed against the order dated 10-10- 2023 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2015-16. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in passing an order u/s.143(3) of the Act which is illegal and bad in law hence the same deserves to be quashed.

2.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.9,60,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s.68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account of Sale of Share Premium and Share Capital. Shalby Ltd., A.Y. 2015-16

3.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the alternativ

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →