“Section 56(2)(vii)(c)”

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

The decision most relied on for Section 56(2)(vii)(c) is Sudhir Menon HUF v. ACIT (45 Taxmann.com 176), cited in 21 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 56(2)(vii)(c)

Sudhir Menon HUF v. ACIT

45 Taxmann.com 176 · 2014 · ITAT

citing judgments

Section 56(2)(vii)(c) does not apply to additional shares allotted pro rata to existing shareholders, as there is no scope for any property being received in such a situation.

CIT v. Jalan Hard Coke Ltd.

95 Taxmann.com 330 · 2018 · High Court

citing judgments

An addition made to income for unexplained share capital is unsustainable if the assessee fails to produce the share applicants, as the assessee cannot be tasked with finding those individuals.

M.J. Siwani v. CIT

53 Taxmann.com 318 · 2015 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The dismissal of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) by the Supreme Court does not, in itself, constitute a judgment affirming the High Court's decision. It signifies that the Supreme Court did not find sufficient grounds to interfere with the High Court's findings.

CIT v. Madan Teatres Ltd.

260 CTR 75 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

Penalty cannot be imposed when the addition to income is solely on account of the valuation officer's estimation of fair market value.

54 of the Act.: 1. Ashok G. Chauhan v. Asstt. CIT

105 Taxmann.com 204 · 2019 · Reported

citing judgments

An assessee claiming deduction under Section 54F is not disentitled if they are a co-owner of another residential property, as fractional ownership does not violate the conditions of the section.

Hunsur Plywood Works Ltd. v. CIT

229 ITR 112 · 1998 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The issuance of bonus shares is merely a capitalization of profits and does not constitute a distribution of profits or a gift to shareholders, as they are essentially receiving certificates entitling them to participate in the company's reserves as part of the capital.

Judgments citing Section 56(2)(vii)(c)

Alka Jain, Panchkula vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Karnal

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 2961/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. Nos. 2960 & 2961/Del/2022 (Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2013-14) Alka Jain Vs. Dcit House No.66, Sector-7, Central Circle Panchkula, Panipat Karnal Haryana – 134 109 Pan : Abopj 0916 B (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 250(6)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68Section 69A

Alka Jain. vs DCIT Asst.Years :2017-18 & 2013-14 ITA No.2960/Del/2022 for A.Y. 2017-18 8. Addition of Rs.10,75,000/- under Section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act is under challenge before us. 9. The impugned addition is on account of difference in fair market value and actual ... Rs.44.13/- per share and since the shares during the year under consideration were allotted to the existing shareholders, thus, provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act are not applicable. Further, it was submitted before the AO that in view of specific provisions of Section 55(2

Alka Jain, Panchkula vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Karnal

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 2960/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 250(6)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68Section 69A

DCIT Centralcircle-2(3), Chennai vs. M/S Tangi Fcility Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 735/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.735/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit M/S. Tangi Facility Solutions Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Central Circle-2(3) Old No.42, New No.2, Chennai-34. Luz Avenue, Mylapore, Vs. Chennai-600 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafct-1408-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mrs. Swapna Nanu Ambath (Cit)- Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G. Shivakumar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-03-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024

For Appellant: Mrs. Swapna Nanu Ambath (CIT)- Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri G. Shivakumar (Advocate)-Ld. AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(b)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viia)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह

ITO, W-6(5), Mohali vs. Smt. Gurdev Kaur, Kharar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1448/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148

property received for a consideration which is less than market value of property was also brought to tax subject to provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c). However the property was defined in explanation below second proviso to section 56(2) (vii)(c ) as below: Property means the following capitals

Ajmer Singh, Mohali vs. ITO, W-6(5), Mohal

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1439/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148

Ajmer Singh, Mohali vs. ITO, W-6(5), Mohal

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1438/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148

Dipti Garg, Tonk vs. ITO WD, Tonk

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 633/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Dr. S Seethalakshmi

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

held that :- “On reading of provisions of 56(2)(viib), we find that it refers to any immoveable property. Further, provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c) refers to any property, other than an immovable property. The meaning of the term "property" has been provided in Explanation (d) to section

DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Continental Corrugators Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1538/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B” DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA

ACIT Circle 16(1), Delhi vs. Kul Prakash Chandok, Delhi

In the result, we do not

ITA 1921/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 55(2)(aa)Section 56(2)(vii)

found that the assessee has sold only the original shares and not the bonus shares received by him. Invoking the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act . The AO computed the addition by taking FMV as under: Bonus Date Record date Qty. Rate Value (Rs.) Market ... Total 36,10,63,656 6.1 The addition was challenged before the CIT(A). It was vehemently contended that the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act not applied on bonus shares. The strong reliance was placed on various judicial decisions. After considering the facts

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji vs. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mathiyan, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 4/PAN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3 & 4/Pan/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14

Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 153ASection 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI (AT e-Court, PUNE) BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji vs. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mathiyan, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 3/PAN/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3 & 4/Pan/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14

Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 153ASection 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI (AT e-Court, PUNE) BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND

ITO, Ward-52(1), New Delhi vs. Arti Jindal, Delhi

ITA 1502/DEL/2021[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

lifetime, the transfer of shares to the Trust was nothing but an exercise to circumvent the provisions attracting taxation as per section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act in the hands of assessee. The assessee, being director of Glebe and having substantial shareholding d) (till transfer of her shares ... consideration to execute the assessee’s plan through usage of special purpose vehicles by circumventing the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, the so-called gift loose its character of gift but became an arrangement. The basis of such assertion gets fully

The DCIT, Circle-2(1), Thrissur vs. Sri.K.P. Johny, Thrissur

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate (with Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv. with him)For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 147Section 148(1)Section 69

reduction of Rs.70.50 lakhs separately assessed u/s.69 of the Act, i.e., while assessing income u/s. 45 or, as the case may be, section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act; OR alternatively, no separate addition for rs. 70.50 lacs u/s. 69 is called for. (e) The assessee shall also explain ... length transaction between unrelated parties, has been deemed as their fair market value on the date of purchase, attracting section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act. That is to say, the same income, rather than being assessed as capital gain, stands to be assessed as income from other sources

Sri.K.P. Johny, Thrissur vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1), Thrissur

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 206/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate (with Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv. with him)For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 147Section 148(1)Section 69

DCIT Circle - 16(1), New Delhi vs. Aruna Chandhok, New Delhi

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA 387/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit, Vs. Smt Aruna Chandhok, Circle-16(1), H-30, Sainik Farms, New Delhi Delhi-110062 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaepc7861R

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 55(2)(aa)Section 56(2)(vii)

made in respect of these bonus shares and bonus units. The assessee vide her submissions dated 04/01/2019 submitted that provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c ) of the Act would not apply to bonus shares at all as it is merely done by capitalization of profits. The value ... post bonus or pre bonus remains the same. Having held so, it is wrong on his part to invoke the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c ) of the Act on the ground that there is an double benefit derived by the assessee due to bonus shares. We find that

Jagdeep Bhargava, Hisar vs. Pr. CIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1279/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271Section 50C

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI

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)

conversion or issue of preference shares. REBUTTAL: a) The question in the said case was whether the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c) would be attracted in case of issue of bonus shares / rights shares which are were allotted pro rata to shareholders including assessee based on their existing ... only an apportionment of the value of their existing holding over a larger number of shares. There is, accordingly, no question of section 56(2)(vii)(c), though per sé applicable to the transaction, i.e., of this genre, getting attracted in such a case. ...” [Emphasis supplied] f) In the decision