← All Phrases

“Section 56(2)(via)”

Section References (mined)Section 56Section 56(2)(via)14 judgments

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)

shares constitutes "creation" and not "transfer", and hence does not fall within the ambit of section 56(2)(viia). The appellant stated that section 56(2)(via) uses specific term 'receives' which is not being defined in the Income Tax Act. Therefore, dictionary meaning of the word ... Section 56(2)(viia) or similar provisions contained in Section 56(2). Further, the memorandum explaining provisions of Finance Bill 2010 stated that section 56(2)(via) of the Act was introduced as an anti-abuse provision to prevent the practice of transferring shares of a private company

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)

shares constitutes "creation" and not "transfer", and hence does not fall within the ambit of section 56(2)(viia). The appellant stated that section 56(2)(via) uses specific term 'receives' which is not being defined in the Income Tax Act. Therefore, dictionary meaning of the word ... Section 56(2)(viia) or similar provisions contained in Section 56(2). Further, the memorandum explaining provisions of Finance Bill 2010 stated that section 56(2)(via) of the Act was introduced as an anti-abuse provision to prevent the practice of transferring shares of a private company

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)

shares constitutes "creation" and not "transfer", and hence does not fall within the ambit of section 56(2)(viia). The appellant stated that section 56(2)(via) uses specific term 'receives' which is not being defined in the Income Tax Act. Therefore, dictionary meaning of the word ... Section 56(2)(viia) or similar provisions contained in Section 56(2). Further, the memorandum explaining provisions of Finance Bill 2010 stated that section 56(2)(via) of the Act was introduced as an anti- abuse provision to prevent the practice of transferring shares of a private company

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 571/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 3Section 47Section 56Section 56(2)(via)Section 56(2)(viia)

unlisted equities during the year" and the AO raised necessary queries regards the details of investments in the shares and applicability of section 56(2)(via) to such investments. 2.1 Upon examination of the details submitted by the assessee, the AO noted that inter- alia the assessee had failed ... Kanti Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 2 ITA No.-571/Del/2019 Brawny Nivesh Pvt. Ltd. 2.2. Thereafter, the AO noted quoted the provision of section 56 (2)(via) of the Act and, after quoting the said provision, the AO observed that in the following cases, as detailed below, the provision of section

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. UPDATER SERVICES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by both the assessee and the Revenue, as well as the grounds raised in the cross-objections filed by the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical...

ITA 1616/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1339 /Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Updater Services Limited (Formerly Dcit, Known As Updater Services Private Vs. Central Circle -2(3), Limited), No.2/302-A, Uds Salai, Chennai. Off Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. [Pan:Aaacu-6845-J] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. K. Prasanna, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 115QSection 250Section 263Section 391Section 77A

case and in law. 2 The LA CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of transaction considered under section 56(2)(via) without appreciating the fact that there was a receipt of property, being shares of a company not being a company in which the public ... transferee, who had earlier issued the shares either for consideration which if found to be inadequate triggers the taxable event envisioned under Section 56(2)(via). 4. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee without appreciating the section does not foresee that the property reverend should

M/S. UPDATER SERVICES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by both the assessee and the Revenue, as well as the grounds raised in the cross-objections filed by the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical...

ITA 1339/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1339 /Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Updater Services Limited (Formerly Dcit, Known As Updater Services Private Vs. Central Circle -2(3), Limited), No.2/302-A, Uds Salai, Chennai. Off Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. [Pan:Aaacu-6845-J] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. K. Prasanna, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 115QSection 250Section 263Section 391Section 77A

case and in law. 2 The LA CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of transaction considered under section 56(2)(via) without appreciating the fact that there was a receipt of property, being shares of a company not being a company in which the public ... transferee, who had earlier issued the shares either for consideration which if found to be inadequate triggers the taxable event envisioned under Section 56(2)(via). 4. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee without appreciating the section does not foresee that the property reverend should

NAVNIRMAN INFRACON PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 10(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 689/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mehta, Addl. Sr. DR
Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(via)Section 56(2)(viia)

lower than its book value which was not\nthe part of the reasons recorded, and thereby aggregate addition of\nRs 2.70.55,620 under section 56(2)(via) of the Act is without\njurisdiction, illegal, invalid and void ab-nitio.\n7. That without prejudice to Ground No 6 above the Learned

NKC PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PCIT DELHI-4, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2804/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

THERMODYNE DYNAMICS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -17(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 500/HYD/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Us :

For Appellant: Shri Pawan KumarFor Respondent: Shri B. Balakrishna -CIT-
Section 11USection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 56

agreed to subscribe to the shares of the aforementioned company viz., M/s. Kineta Metals and Minerals Limited (supra) before the insertion of Section 56(2)(via) w.e.f 01.06.2010 was not even notarized much the less registered, thus, the same does not inspire any confidence 15 Thermodyne Dynamics Private Limited

RISING STAR INVESTMENT,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 26(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 186/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Ashwin Chhag, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Mahadevan A.M. Krishanan, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 56(2)(via)Section 56(2)(viia)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

NAVRATAN MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMM CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

ITA 3586/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 2(14)Section 250Section 56(2)(via)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viia)

more than the purchase value\nper share and therefore, he show caused the Assessee “as to why the\nprovision of section 56(2)(via) of the Act should not be invoked over the\npurchase of these shares and differential amount ( between the fair market\nvalue and purchase value) should ... nextension of 56/2) (vii) and is applicable to only capital asset. The A.O\nheld that the assessee's case is related to section 56(2)(via) which is\napplicable to company and firm and it is clearly distinct from the\napplicability of section 56(2)(vii) which is related

UTILITY SUPPLY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

ITA 3585/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Smiti Samant, Ld. D.R
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 56(2)(via)Section 56(2)(viia)

ninvestment so as to be categorized as capital assets (Property).\nBefore proceeding further it is worthwhile to discuss the\nprovisions of section 56(2)(via) of the IT Act 1961 which is\nreproduced here under.\n“where a firm or a company not being a company in which the\npublic ... Further, the non-applicability\nclause is also very clear in both the sections. Beside the above,\nthe explanation applicable for section 56(2)(via) of the Act is only\nrelated to “fair market value” as described in the explanation to\nsection 56(2

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6 1 1 , MUMBAI vs. DLK COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 864/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModiFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 56(2)(via)Section 56(2)(viia)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) SHRI C.V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R

SHAIL GAS PVT LTD,GHAZAIBAD vs. PR.CIT -7, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 630/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(via)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, World Trade Centre, Nauroji Nagar, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R