DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. ASHISH JUGALKISHOR BHALA, JALNA

ITA 1238/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 June 2025AY 2021-22Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition on account of interest receivable from Vikas Industries was to be restored as the assessee admitted to giving a loan. Regarding agricultural income, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s deletion was not fully justified and modified the addition, allowing a reasonable amount as agricultural income.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made by the AO. The additions related to the valuation of unquoted shares, advances to a company, and agricultural income. The assessee had purchased shares and provided valuation reports, and the AO had made additions based on different valuation methods and alleged cash transactions.

What were the issues?

The primary issues were the correct valuation of unquoted shares for tax purposes and the substantiation of agricultural income and cash advances.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(x),Section 132,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 50CA,Section 43CA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Anand Partani
For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

PER R. K. PANDA, VP :

This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 31.03.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), Pune-12 relating to assessment year 2021-22. 2. Grounds raised by the Revenue are as under:

1.

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,44,42,560/- made u/s 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the valuation for the purpose of section 56(2)(x) is the Fair Market Value [FMV] which is derived as prescribed method of valuation in accordance with the Rule 11U & 11UA of Income Tax Rule, 1962 with respect to the unquoted shares.

2.

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in la

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 56(2)(x)

All 565 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(x) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →