“Section 56(2)(vii)(b)”

Pinky Dilip Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO - 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

difference between the sale consideration and the value determined by the stamp duty authority for the purpose of stamp duty as per Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 3.1. I have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is an individual ... Pinky Dilip Mehta difference in consideration of Rs.38,31,000/- being not brought to tax in terms of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act being the year under consideration. The details of property purchased by the assessee are as under:- Details of Date of Agreement Stamp duty Difference

Mr. Sajjanraj Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-21(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no-4 is also allowed with a direction to the A

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalmr. Sajjanraj Mehta C/O. M. Mehta & Co., Shop No. 19, Palamsojal Building, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028. Pan: Aabpm9430B ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward-21(3)(2) Room No. 206, 2Nd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai-400012. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Ajay Singh Respondent By : Sh. Pramod Nikalje Date Of Hearing : 14/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As (‘Cit(A)’] Dated 11.02.2020 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

allegation made by the AO that the case of the Appellant did not fall within the purview of the proviso to Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable thereto, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding ... market value of the property was Rs. 1,00,28,500/- his attention was drawn to the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b). The assessee was required to show cause why the difference between the consideration and the stamp duty value

Mehvish Hadee Bhavnagarwala, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) 46, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

during the relevant financial year, assessee purchased two immovable properties. Accordingly, assessee was asked to explain as to why the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act are not attracted in the present case and as to why the amount of Rs. 16,22,000, being difference ... agree with the submissions of the assessee and made addition of Rs. 16,22,000 under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. 4. In appeal before the learned CIT(A), despite various notices being issued, no reply/submission was filed on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, vide

Rajesh R. Sawlani, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

upholding the Addition of Income made by the Assessing Officer on account of consideration that, the Addition to Income is sustainable within section 56(2) (vii) (b)( ii) and the same can be brought under Tax-net under Assessment Year: 2014-15 Page 2 of 9 section 56(2)(vii ... Stage-wise of Three Years and the Risk involved there-in is itself is out of the purview of the addition under section 56(2) (vii) (b)(ii) of Income Tax Act 1961 ,and as such in fact and in Law the same is unjustified, unwarranted

Shri. Amit Ashokkumar Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 21 (1)(1), Mumbai

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” Bench, Mumbai Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) I.T.A. No. 6821/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) Vs. ITO

Learning Curve Edutech Solutions Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

under section 263 of the Act in the instant case on the issue of examination of share premium in the context of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 11. Even on merits, we find that all the allegations levelled by learned PCIT for disbelieving valuation report had been ... hereinabove. Accordingly, even on merits, there cannot be any addition on account of share premium either under section 68 or under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act as the issue of shares in the instant case has been done in accordance with Rule 11UA(2)(b

Smt Hiral Dhaval Kothari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD 30(1) (4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Hiral Dhaval Kothari, Ito, Ward-30(1)(4), B-403, Sanskriti Building, Kautilya Bhavan, Kedermal Road, Malad (East) Vs. Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 097. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aumpk 5669 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Prateek Jha & Mr. Prayag Jha, Ars Revenue By : Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2022

that the Ld ITO had made addition in a routine manner without following the procedure for the purpose of making addition under section 56(2) (vii)(b) of the IT Act. 4. Without prejudice to Ground Nos 1, 2 and 3, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact ... assessee, which amounted to ₹7,84,520/-, be added to the total income of the assessee in terms of provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). No details were provided by the assessee except the claim that Smt. Hiral Dhaval

Shri De vs. Haran Shivnath Sharma, Mumbai

properties, the ld. AO ought to have made reference to the ld. Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) in accordance with the proviso to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. We find that the ld. CIT(A) had held that 3 Shri Devsharan Shivnath Sharma assessee had not made

DCIT 6 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Kilitch Healthcare India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross objection is held to be infructuous

addition of Rs.41,94,79,280 u/s. 56(2)(viia) of the Act. 4. Apropos issue of addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act :- During the course of assessment proceedings the AO observed that the assessee issued 4,20,000 shares of Rs.10 each at a premium ... have heard both the parties and perused the records. We note that in the present case the issue is addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act read with Rule 11UA, for the premium on preference shares which are unquoted. Before proceeding further we may gainfully refer

Rajib Rathindra Saha, Bhayander vs. ITO (It) 4 (2)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 7352/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2014-15) Rajib Rathindra Saha, B-25 Divine Life Chs, Jesal Park, Bhayander (East), Thane 401 105 Pan: Appps-1480-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito(It)-4(2)(1), Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri R.A. Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/02/2022

Assessing Officer held that since the agreement was executed in the period relevant to the assessment under appeal provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act as amended by the Finance Act 2013 w.e.f. 01/04/2014 would be applicable and hence, made addition of the difference between ... 18/03/2013 and had executed the agreement on 31/03/2013 i.e. the period relevant to the Assessment Year 2013-14, the amended provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) would not apply. Merely for the reason that the agreement was registered on 02/04/2014 i.e. during the period relevant to the assessment