ACIT v. Venkanna 40 Vijay Kumar Vijayvergiya vs. DCIT Choudhary

180 ITD 166Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2020#23220 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 362,844 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2022.

Judgments citing ACIT v. Venkanna 40 Vijay Kumar Vijayvergiya vs. DCIT Choudhary

Vijay Kumar Vijayvergiya, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-7, Jaipiur

In the result ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 238/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 253Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68Section 69

…present case it is fresh allotment of shares. 13. We are of the opinion discussing the above issues and respectfully following the view taken by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in case of ACIT vs. Venkanna 40 Vijay Kumar Vijayvergiya vs. DCIT Choudhary [2020] 180 ITD 166 (Visakhapatnam-Trib.) dated 30-09-2019 facts and submissions are also identical to the facts and submissions and the relevant paras are as under:- “10. We have heard both the sides and perused the material placed on record. In the instant case, the assessee has acquired fresh allotment of shares from M/s Sardar Projects (P) Ltd. The company has…

Kbc India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-14(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 9710/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 56(2)(viib)

…owner has made the investment for the benefit of others. 4 | P a g e AY: 2016-17 5. That being the case, no addition under section 56(2)(viib) could have been made. In this context he relied upon the following decisions: 1. ACIT Vs. Y. Venkannachaudhary, 180 ITD 166 2. Vaani Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, [2018] 98 taxmann.com 92 6. Proceeding further, he submitted, as per section 56(2)(viib) read with its Explanation fair market value shall be the value as determined in accordance with the method prescribed or based on the value of the assets of the company, including, intangible assets. He submitted, in cas…

M/S Prakash Chand Sharma HUF, C-42, Kaladeep, Vaishali Nagar, Gokul Path, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-3(5), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 325/JPR/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 2Section 274Section 56(2)(vii)

…r of right in shares by one relative to another relative and therefore also section 56(2)(vii)(c) would not get attracted. Reliance in this connection is placed on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT Visakhapatnam Bench in case of ACITVs. Y. Venkanna Choudhary(2020) 180 ITD 166. In view of the said decision, even if section 56(2)(vii)(c) is applied, because of explanation (e) of section 56(2)(vii) which provides that in case of HUF, any member thereof falls in the definition of relative, as the shares allotted to the assessee to the extent of 95.35% was from the interest of his relatives, the same ought not be subject t…