“Section 56(2)(vii)(c)”

Section References (mined)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)(c)57 judgments

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2577/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

nDisallowance u/s 24a 25,200 (12.6)\nFair rent 3,40,000 (12.7)\nDeemed dividend (14.1-14.13)\nAddition under Section 56(2)(vii)(c) 92,95,305 (15.1-15.5)\nForeign Travel Expenses\nUnexplained investment u/s 69\nUnexplained money

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2576/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2575/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2574/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2573/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2571/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

ITA 2570/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

{"clean_text": ":-2-:\nITA Nos: 2569, 2570, 2571,\n2573 to 2577/Chny/2025\nPER BENCH:\nITA No(s). 2571, 2573 - 2577/CHNY/2025 for

TIRUCHANGODU RAMASAMY KHANNAIYANN SARASUWATHI,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, COIMBATORE

ITA 3135/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT

Section 142A(6)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

tolerance band, then said difference cannot be considered as deemed consideration in the hands of the seller and consequently the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act cannot be invoked in the hands of the buyer. Since, difference between guideline value and consideration paid for purchase

SANYA DHANANI,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(4), INDORE

In the result the \"Impugned order” is upheld as the same\nhas set aside the “impugned assessment order” and has\nremanded the matter back to the file of Ld

ITA 238/IND/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 251Section 253

extensive factual verification. The original assessment order had made an addition of Rs. 1,99,15,600/- under Section 56(2)(vii)(C). The assessee contended that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law due to the lack of competent authority approval.", "held": "The Tribunal held that

SASIKALA KRISHNASAMY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-5(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2558/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2558/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ms. Sasikala Krishnasamy, The Income Tax Officer, 1/40, Kpcm Colony, Vs. Corporate Ward 5(2), St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. Chennai -600 016. Pan: Bknpk 9425K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sundar Raman, Ca & Shri R. Srivatsan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri S. Sundar Raman, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

income of the assessee u/s.56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act. Therefore, an addition of Rs.10,19,908/- was made under section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the reassessment completed vide order dated 21.03.2022, assessee filed appeal before the FAA. The FAA dismissed the assessee

KAYUM RAZAK DHANANI ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 634/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

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)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFOREHON’BLE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM

FRAGMENT NIVESH P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 572/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Enormous Nivesh Pvt. Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., 1, Zamrudpur Community Income Tax, Central Circle Centre, Kailash Colony, 13, Ara Centre, New Delhi – 1100 48 Jhandewalan Extension, Pan No. Aabcd1454F Delhi -1100 55 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Fragment Nivesh P. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 1, Zamrudpur Community Income Tax, Central Circle Centre, Kailash Colony, 13, Ara Centre, New Delhi – 1100 48 Jhandewalan Extension, Pan No. Aaecs5314G Delhi -1100 55 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Avikal Manu, CIT - DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 56(2)

fall within the purview of section 56(2)(viia) instead of allotment of shares profession has to be dealt with section 56(2)(vii)(c). 9.1 As per ratio of judgment rendered in the case of PCIT vs. Jigar Jashwantlal Shah, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held as under

ENORMOUS NIVESH P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 570/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Avikal Manu, CIT - DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 56(2)

JAIPAL JAIN,HARYANA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KARNAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4914/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

case the co-ordinate bench held as under:\n\n7. On facts, the AO in the instant case invoked the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act in\nrespect of shares allotted to the assessee @ INR 40/- per share against the rights entitlement being\nexisting shareholder ... thus INR 4/- per share were deemed as income from other sources.\nThe assessee made out a case that the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(c) do not apply in view of\nsection 49(4) of the Act and in view of the existing entitlement which partakes the character

VYANKATESH NARAYAN KULKARNI,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE 3(4) , THANE

ITA 1849/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vyankatesh Narayan Kulkarni, Ito-3(4), 301 Sunflower Tower, Kharkar Ali Ashar It Part, 6Th Floor, Road No. Vs. Road, Parvati Bhavan, 16Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane West-400604. Thane West-400604. Pan No. Agmpk 6406 E Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Dharmesh Shah/Ms. Mitali

Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

received the shares as bonus shares and the provisions of has received the shares as bonus shares and the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) (c) are not applicable to bonus shares for the ection 56(2)(vii) (c) are not applicable to bonus shares for the ection 56(2 ... section 56(2) by the appellant and therefore the provisions of section 56(2) by the appellant and therefore the provisions of section 56(2) (vii)(c) are not applicable in the (vii)(c) are not applicable in the instant case. 2. Briefly stated, the assessee filed return of income

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, FARIDABAD vs. SOHAN LAL SINGLA, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 8433/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 8433/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Acit, Vs Sohan Lal Singla, Central Circle-1, 31, Punjabi Bagh, West Avenue, Faridabad, Haryana-121001 New Delhi-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aezps1205E Assessee By : Sh. G. C. Srivastava, Adv. & Sh. Kalrav Malhotra, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.08.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13, Arises Against The Cit(A)-3, Gurgaon’S In Case No. 347/Cit(A)- 3/Ggn/2017-18 Dated 14.08.2019, In Proceedings U/S 153A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. G. C. Srivastava, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR

Section 153ASection 56(2)(vii)

assessment order?” 4. Suffice to say, the Revenue’s sole endavour herein is to revive the Assessing Officer’s action making section 56(2)(vii)(c) addition of Rs.6,87,75,000/- thereby holding the assessee’s share premium received at a heavy discount price of Rs.10.- against fair market

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)

pages 8 to 10 of the assessment order. After considering the same, AO rejected the same. He observed that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c) are attracted in this case wherein assessee has claimed STCL of Rs.5,35,67,381/-. The AO observed that the assessee has received ... assessee for acquisition of bonus shares i.e. NIL should not be treated as assessee’s income as per provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act. In response, assessee submitted that there is no taxable event on issue of bonus shares and the provisions of section 56(2

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)

JAGDISH JAMAKLAL MANSUKHANI,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2513/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jainam Sonaiya/ Shri Vishal

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

action of Assessing Officer of making an addition of the share premium amount without appreciating the fact that the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(c) clearly says that only when an individual or a Hindu Undivided Family "receives" any property for consideration that is less than ... when the allotment was made by the company, could not be said to be "received", which is the fundamental requirement for invoking section 56(2)(vii)(c), hence the addition u/s 56(2)(vii) is not justified.” 2 Jagdish Jamakhal Mansukhani 4. Brief facts of the case are that

Showing 1–20 of 57 · Page 1 of 3