Sudhir Menon HUF v. ACIT

45 Taxmann.com 176Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2014#5730 most cited
21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also reported as

148 ITD 260

Sections most often in play

Section 56(2)(viia)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 48Section 49(4)Section 50DSection 54FSection 56(2)(vii)(c)

Issues it is cited on

section 56(2)(vii)(c)section 56(2)(viia)section 47section 49nav methodsection 56(2)(vii)purposive interpretationsection 52dcf methodsection 56(2)(viib)valuation of sharessection 56(2)

Judgments citing Sudhir Menon HUF v. ACIT

NEWAGE VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2307/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH AT KOLKATA Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.: 2307/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Newage Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. D.C.I.T., Circle-8(2), Kolkata Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AACCN1642A Appearances: Assessee represented by : S. Bhattacharya, CA. Department represented by : Praveen Kishore, CIT (DR). Date of concluding the hearing : 05-February-2026 Date of pronouncing the order : 11-February-2026 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the Assessee is against the order of the Co…

GAURAV VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2306/KOL/2025[205-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50DSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.: 2306/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Gaurav Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. D.C.I.T., Circle-8(1), Kolkata Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AACCG4269Q Appearances: Assessee represented by : Sanjay Bhattacharaya, FCA. Department represented by : P.N. Barnwal, CIT, DR. Date of concluding the hearing : 11-December-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 10-February-2026 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Co…

MADHUR COAL MINING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1784/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50DSection 56(2)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.: 1784/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Madhur Coal Mining Pvt. Ltd. D.C.I.T., Circle-8(1), Kolkata Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAECM4877C Appearances: Assessee represented by : S. Bhattacharya, AR. Department represented by : Praveen Kishore, CIT (DR). Date of concluding the hearing : 13-October-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 02-January-2026 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Co…

M/S. AMBATTUR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-1(1), CHENNAI

ITA 2601/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2601/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Ambattur Developers Private Limited, (Amalgamated With Ambattur Hotels Private Limited) No. 86/E2, Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai - 600 058. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaeca-7490-D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Corporate Ward- 1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : Shri. Bipin, C.N., Cit सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025 : 11.11.2025 आदेश /Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Nfac, Delhi, (In Short Ld.Cit(A)) For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Vide Order Dated 12.08.2024. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: :-2-:

For Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2601/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Ambattur Developers Private Limited, (Amalgamated with Ambattur Hotels Private Limited) No. 86/E2, Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai - 600 058. Tamil Nadu. [PAN: AAECA-7490-D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Income Tax Officer, vs. Corporate Ward- 1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/…

SILGATE SOLUTIONS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5367/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: or at the time of hearing of the matter with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal." 2. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of international call centre. The assessee filed a return of income for AY 2013-14 on 24.10.2013, declaring total income of Rs.92,36,060/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings the AO noticed that there was change in the shareholding pattern of the assessee wherein the ass

For Appellant: Shri. SwapnilChoudhary Sr. AR
Section 234ASection 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viia)

…ould not have been invoked in the hands of the assessee company. 27. The question of taxability of bonus shares received by a shareholder u/s 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act came to be considered in the case of Sudhir Menon HUF v. Asstt. CIT [2014] 45 axmann.com 176/148 ITD 260 by the Mumbai bench of Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the additional shares were allotted pro rata to the existing shareholders and there was no scope for any property being received on said allotment of shares and hence provisions of sec. 56(2)(vii)(c) will not apply. The above said decision was followed by the Bangalore bench of ITAT in the c…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1834/DEL/2021[20017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

…f ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Meenu Satija (supra). The Departmental Appeal has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. 6. In the result, appeal of the Revenue dismissed. " 4.3.16 Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of Sudhir Menon HUF Vs ACIT [2014] 148 ITD 260 (Mumbai) held that where additional shares of a company were allotted pro rata to shareholders including assessee based on their existing shareholding, there was no scope for any property being received on said allotment of shares and, consequently, provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c) did not apply to difference in book value and face value of ad…

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1205/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

…f ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Meenu Satija (supra). The Departmental Appeal has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. 6. In the result, appeal of the Revenue dismissed. " 4.3.16 Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of Sudhir Menon HUF Vs ACIT [2014] 148 ITD 260 (Mumbai) held that where additional shares of a company were allotted pro rata to shareholders including assessee based on their existing shareholding, there was no scope for any property being received on said allotment of shares and, consequently, provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c) did not apply to difference in book value and face value of ad…

LUPIN INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO ZYMA LABORATORIES LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 4635/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, Shri Pratik PoddarFor Respondent: \nShri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT, D/R
Section 115QSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 35ASection 56(2)(viia)Section 80G

…{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ, मुंबई ।\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n“A” BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n&\nSHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER\nI.T.A. No. 4635/Mum/2024\n Assessment Year: 2016-17\nLupin Investments Private Limited\n(Successor to Zyma Laboratories Limited)\n159, CST Road\nKalina Santacruz East\nMaharashtra - 400098\n[PAN: AAACL1070G]\nVs\nDeputy Commissioner of\nIncome Tax – 14(2)(1),\nMumbai\nअपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/ (Respondent)\nAssessee by : Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, Shri Pratik Poddar\n& \nShri Shr…

SILLS KARINGATTIL JOSE,NEDUMKANDOM vs. ITO WARD 2, THODUPUZHA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 132/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhsils Karingattil Jose Income Tax Officer Np 3/406, Karingattil Ward - 2, House, Munnar Road Thodupuzha Vs. Nedumkandom P.O. [Pan: Afopj8789C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(V)Section 250Section 50CSection 53ASection 56(2)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member Sils Karingattil Jose Income Tax Officer NP 3/406, Karingattil Ward - 2, House, Munnar Road Thodupuzha vs. Nedumkandom P.O. [PAN: AFOPJ8789C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. M. Veeramani, CA Respondent by: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 22.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 19.11.2024 O R D E R Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2016-17 arises against the CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delh…

TIKI TAR INDUSTRIES BARODA LTD,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-2, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 166/AHD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2014-15 Tiki Tar Industries Baroda Ltd. Pr.Cit-2 8Th Floor, Neptune Tower Vs Vadodara. Baroda Productivity Council Alkapuri, Vadodara Pan : Aadct 8382 Q

For Appellant: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263oSection 3

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘A’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] BEFORE SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year :2014-15 Tiki Tar Industries Baroda Ltd. Pr.CIT-2 8th Floor, Neptune Tower Vs Vadodara. Baroda Productivity Council Alkapuri, Vadodara PAN : AADCT 8382 Q (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Milin Mehta, AR Assesseeby : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, CIT-DR Revenue b…

CHHATTISGARH METALIKS AND ALLOYS PVT. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -3(3), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 114/RPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.114/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Chhattisgarh Metaliks & Alloys Private Limited Mohini B-5, Merlin Jayashree Vihar, Mandi Gate, Pandri Tarai, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aadcc9242J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(3), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: None
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G D PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.114/RPR/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Chhattisgarh Metaliks and Alloys Private Limited Mohini B-5, Merlin Jayashree Vihar, Mandi Gate, Pandri Tarai, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 PAN : AADCC9242J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer-3(3), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CA Revenue by : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 22.02.2023 घो…

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI JIGAR JASHWANTLAL SHAH, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1643/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shibaji Simlai, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 234Section 271(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…s. 56(2)(vii) of the Act cannot be invoked. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) gave part relief to the assessee in respect of allotment made proportionate to the current shareholding of the assessee (of 1,03,000 shares) relying on the decision of Sudhir Menon (HUF) v. ACIT 45 Taxmann.com 176 , but in respect of additional shares received by the assessee on renouncement of rights shares by wife and father of the assessee amounting to 82,200 shares and also 14,800 allotted the assessee as a result of third party shareholders renouncing their rights shares in favour of the assessee, he upheld the disallowance on the ground that t…

SHRI JIGAR JASHWANTLAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1541/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shibaji Simlai, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 234Section 271(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…s. 56(2)(vii) of the Act cannot be invoked. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) gave part relief to the assessee in respect of allotment made proportionate to the current shareholding of the assessee (of 1,03,000 shares) relying on the decision of Sudhir Menon (HUF) v. ACIT 45 Taxmann.com 176 , but in respect of additional shares received by the assessee on renouncement of rights shares by wife and father of the assessee amounting to 82,200 shares and also 14,800 allotted the assessee as a result of third party shareholders renouncing their rights shares in favour of the assessee, he upheld the disallowance on the ground that t…

DCIT CIRCLE-15 (3), MUMBAI vs. M/S RANKIN INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 2 and 3 raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7288/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Circle – 15(3)(1) V. M/S. Rankin Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 451, 4Th Floor Next To Classic Marble Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Subash Nagar Road, Bhandup (E) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai -400078 Pan: Aafcs5275B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal Department By : Shri T. Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 56(2)(viib)

…e provisions of section 56(2)(viib). 2.17) In this regard it is pertinent to refer to para 4.1.3 of the order passed u/s 143(3), wherein the learned AO has relied on the decision of the jurisdictional Mumbai ITAT in the case of Sudhir Menon HUF vs ACIT (2014) 45 Taxmann.com 176. The learned AO has stated that in the said decision, it is held that the right issue of shares are also covered u/s 56(2)(vii), and applying the said analogy, the learned AO has stated that the terms of issue of shares in section 56(2)(viib) includes issue of shares by way of conversion or issue of preference shares. REBUTTAL: a) The ques…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-13(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. SHRI RAJEEV R. TULSHYAN, MUMBAI

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 5748/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.5748/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Income Tax Officer-13(1)(3) Shri Rajeev Ratanlal Tulshyan 2Nd Floor, Room No.225 बिाम 4101, 4Th Floor, C-Wing Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Lodha Bellissimo, J.B. Boricha Marg / Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 011 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Abopt-2790-D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Cross Objection No.118/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5748/Mum/2017) (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Rajeev Ratanlal Tulshyan Income Tax Officer-13(1)(3) 4101, 4Th Floor, C-Wing 2Nd Floor, Room No.225 बिाम/ Lodha Bellissimo, J.B. Boricha Marg Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 011 Mumbai-400 020. स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Abopt-2790-D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Rushabh Mehta- Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Gaurav Batham-Ld. Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/07/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 01/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Batham-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

…1 Shri Rajeev Ratanlal Tulshyan Assessment Year: 2014-15 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “डी” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री महावीर स िंह, उपाध्यक्ष एवुं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा दस्य के मक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.5748/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Income Tax Officer-13(1)(3) Shri Rajeev Ratanlal Tulshyan 2nd Floor, Room No.225 बिाम 4101, 4th Floor, C-Wing Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Lodha Bellissimo, J.B. Boricha Marg / Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Lower Parel, Mumba…

REGAL BUILDTECH P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-21(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7505/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleregal Buildtech P. Ltd. Vs Acit 2/48, Shopping Centre, Malcha Circle-21(1) Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Aaccr9566P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 292BSection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Regal Buildtech P. Ltd. Vs ACIT 2/48, Shopping Centre, Malcha Circle-21(1) Marg, New Delhi New Delhi AACCR9566P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, Adv, Ms. Aushi Gupta, CA Respondent by Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 31.05.2019 Date of Pronouncement 18.06.2019 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 9/10/2018 passed by CIT(A)-7, for Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The grounds of…

PUSHP STEELS & MINING (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6094/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR) &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153(1)Section 68

…the assessee submitted that the issue of the shares to the existence shareholders were at the lower rate of premium and this fact has been discussed by the Ld. CIT(A) on page 14 in para 8.29 and 8.30 and as per the decision of Mumbai Bench in SudhirMenon HUF 148 ITD 260, the issue of shares to existing shareholders at lower premium cannot be compared with those issued to new shareholders at higher premium. There is no violation of Income Tax Law as applicable to AY 2008-09 (prior to introduction of sec 56(2)(vii)(b) w.e.f from 01.04.2013) as well as the companies Act as there is no bar under the companies Act…

KUMAR PAPPU SINGH,TANUKU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , ELURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 270/VIZ/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.270/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-2014) Sri Kumar Pappu Singh Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of D.No.23-3-26, Sundaram Nagar Income Tax, Sajjapuram Circle-1, Kks Towers, Tanuku Rr Pet, Eluru [Pan : Aeepp2496P] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

…nt of right shares does not increase the assets of the company and do not attract sub section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act. Therefore, requested to quash the order passed by the Ld.Pr.CIT. The assessee also relied on the decision of Sudhir Menon Vs. ACIT, Mumbai (148 ITD 260) and argued that the issue of right shares and its allotment does not amount to issue of fresh shares at FMV as the value of the shares and the assets are already embedded in the value of original shares. The assessee also relied on the decision of M/s Khoday Distilleries Ltd. Vs.CIT, wherein Hon’ble supreme court observed in para No. 7 that “It…

VORA FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 532/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S. Vora Financial Services P. Ltd. A C I T - 2(3((1) 801/806, 8Th Floor, Elite Square Aayakar Bhavan Vs. 274, Perin Nariman, St. Bazar Gate M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai 400001 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacv1975E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan
Section 14ASection 35(1)(iii)Section 56(2)(viia)

…of sec. 56(2)(viia) should not have been invoked in the hands of the assessee company. 27. The question of taxability of bonus shares received by a shareholder u/s 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act came to be considered in the case of Sudhir Menon HUF vs. ACIT (2014)(148 ITD 260) by the Mumbai bench of Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the additional shares were allotted pro rata to the existing shareholders and there was no scope for any property being received on said allotment of shares and hence provisions of sec. 56(2)(vii)(c) will not apply. The above said decision was followed by the 13 M/s. Vora Financial Services…

MEENU SATIJA,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3215/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J. S. Reddy & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rachna Singh, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 133Section 143(2)Section 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

…it was never the intention of legislature to bring the receipt of bonus/right shares, within the purview of section 56 (2) (vii) of the Act. He placed reliance upon the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Sudhir Menon (HUF) vs. ACIT reported in (2014) 148 ITD 260, and decision of Bangalore Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Dr Rajan Pie reported in 2016 48 ITR (TRIB) 170. 8. He submitted that Provisions of Section 56 (2)(vii) could not be applied as it was introduced as an anti-abuse provision, whereas in the present case, assessee transactions were bona fide, without there being any adverse remarks on beha…

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2