DCIT CIRCLE-15 (3), MUMBAI vs. M/S RANKIN INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD., MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the Ld.CIT(A) was correct in admitting the valuation report as additional evidence, as it was crucial to the assessment. The Tribunal also agreed with the Ld.CIT(A)'s finding that Section 56(2)(viib) was not applicable in the year of conversion of OFCDs into preference shares.
What were the facts?
The assessee company converted Optionally Fully Convertible Debentures (OFCDs) into preference shares. The Assessing Officer (AO) invoked Section 56(2)(viib) alleging that the premium received on these shares exceeded their fair market value. The assessee argued that the conversion itself is not a taxable event and that the consideration was received in earlier assessment years.
What were the issues?
Whether Section 56(2)(viib) applies to the conversion of OFCDs into preference shares, and whether the Ld.CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(6)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty628 citing128 ITR 294 · 1981 · SC
- Cinestaan Entertainment (P) Ltd. v. ITO28 citing106 Taxmann.com 300 · 2019 · HC
- Sudhir Menon HUF v. ACIT21 citing45 Taxmann.com 176 · 2014
- Rameshwaram Strong Glass (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Ajmer17 citing96 Taxmann.com 542 · 2018
- Medplus Health Services (P) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer8 citing68 Taxmann.com 29 · 2016 · ITAT
- CIT v. Safe Decore (P) Ltd.6 citing90 Taxmann.com 161 · 2018 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, HONBLE & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HONBLEShri Rajiv Khandelwal Shri T. Shankar
PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM)
This appeal is filed by the revenue against order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–24, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 23.08.2019 for the A.Y.2015-16. 2. Revenue has raised following grounds in its appeal: -
2 M/s. Rankin Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the section 56(2)(viib) is applicable in the year of receipt of consideration and not in the year of issuance of shares. 2. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting additional eviden
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.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Income Tax Officer, New Delhi vs Ninecube Technologies Pvt. Ltd., New DelhiDelhi31 Jul 2025Dismissed
The Tribunal held that the assessee's valuation of unquoted shares, used to determine the FMV for issuing new shares, was correctly calculated as per Rule 11UA. The CIT(A)'s order, which deleted the AO's addition, was ba...
- ITO Ward - 23(1), New Delhi vs Shradha Mh One Tv Network Pvt Ltd, New DelhiDelhi19 Jul 2022Dismissed
The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(viib) is not applicable as the share application money was received in FY 2010-11, prior to the insertion of the said provision. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.
- Regal Buildtech P.Ltd, New Delhi vs ACIT, Circle-21(1), New DelhiDelhi18 Jun 2019Remanded
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to clarify the projected cash flows and did not consider the submissions made. Therefore, the issues were remanded back to the A...
- Ascentech Engineering Solutions Private… vs DCIT, Circle 1(1), HyderabadHyderabad6 Mar 2026Allowed
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer does not have the jurisdiction to substitute the valuation method chosen by the assessee. While the AO can scrutinize the valuation report, they cannot impose a different meth...
- Ipsaa Holdings Private Limited, Gurgaon vs ACIT Circle 4(1), GurgaonDelhi23 Jul 2025Allowed
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot substitute the NAV method for the DCF method adopted by the assessee's independent valuer. It also noted that projections are not expected to be perfectly accurate and that the transa...
More judgments on Section 56(2)(viib)
- M/S Namdev Finvest Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-1, JaipurITA 1255/JPR/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Payswiff Technologies Private Limited… vs DCIT, Circle-5(1), HyderabadITA 131/HYD/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
- Radison Estates Private Limited, Bangalore vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle…ITA 519/BANG/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- Income Tax Officer - 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs Coolberg Beverages Pvt Ltd, MumbaiITA 4286/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Medwell Ventures Private Limited, Delhi vs The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 1775/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
