← All Phrases

“Section 56(2)(viia)”

Section References (mined)Section 56Section 56(2)(viia)86 judgments

NEELESH SHYAMSUNDER SABLE,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 51(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 8304/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Respondent: Mr. Sumit Sinha, Adv. (Virtually
Section 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viia)Section 56(2)(x)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

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)

Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC was wrong in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in applying the provisions of Section 56(2)(viia) in relation to the allotment of Shares made by 3(three) Companies to the appellant and the Addition made of Rs.14,45,34,600 under ... section 56(2)(viia). 2. That without prejudice to the contention raised in Ground No. (1) above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC failed to appreciate that Shares received on Allotment by a Company could not attract the provisions of Section 56(2)(viia) and thus the Commissioner

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)

Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC was wrong in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in applying the provisions of Section 56(2) (viia) in relation to the allotment of Shares made by 3(three) Companies to the appellant and the Addition made of Rs.13,53,09,500 under ... section 56(2)(viia). 2. That without prejudice to the contention raised in Ground No. (1) above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC failed to appreciate that Shares received on Allotment by a Company could not attract the provisions of Section 56(2)(viia) and thus the Commissioner

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. GAURAV DALMIA, DELHI

In the result, additional ground 1 under Rule 27 of the assessee is

ITA 4162/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69A

valuation in respect of transfer of shares. However DCF method of valuation cannot be applied in respect of transfer of shares as per section 56(2)(viia) of the Income Tax Act. vii) In view of the above i.e. based on reading of provisions of the Section 56(2)(viia ... addition can only be made on the basis of incriminating material and not on the basis of estimated difference in valuation under section 56(2)(viia). Reliance is placed in this regard on the following judicial ruling: (Emphasis supplied) - a) PCIT vs Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. (SC) reported

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)

Appeals), NFAC was wrong in upholding the addition of Rs.13,23,01,000 made by the Assessing Officer by applying the provisions of Section 56(2)(viia) in the matter of Shares acquired by the appellant on allotment of the Shares by subscribing thereto. (2) That without prejudice ... contention raised in Ground No. (1) above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC failed to appreciate that the provisions of Section 56(2)(viia) could not be applied in the case of a direct allotment of Shares by a company and thus the Ld. Commissioner of Income

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)

shares of Gain E Commerce Pvt. Ltd. and Kanti Commercial Pvt. Ltd. and also failed to explain as to why the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the I.T. Act, 1961 would not apply in the share purchase transaction in the above shares. The AO further noted that assessee ... with said findings of the AO the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the assessee challenged the applicability of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act, in respect of the additions made on account of difference between the purchase value and the fair market value

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SOYUMM MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue, being ITA no

ITA 4306/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1) Room No.653, Aaykar Bhawan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020 V/S Spectra Realities Private Limited, 9, Floor-I, Plot – 51, Kapadia Chamber, Devji Ratansi Marg, ……………… Respondent Chinchbunder, Mumbai – 400009 Pan: Aalcs7233B Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1) Room No.653, Aaykar Bhawan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr.AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

value of Rs. 100 and premium of Rs. 220. For the purpose of determining the fair market value of such shares as per section 56(2)(viia), Rule 11UA of Income Tax rules is applicable. As per clause (c), the fair market value of unquoted shares and securities other than ... merchant banker would be needed. Thus, there is no dispute on the issue that for determining the excessive premium for the purpose of section 56(2)(viia), provision of rule 11UA are applicable and as per clause (c) of sub rule (1) of 11UA, no specific formula for the valuation

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SPECTRA REALTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue, being ITA no

ITA 4304/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1) Room No.653, Aaykar Bhawan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020 V/S Spectra Realities Private Limited, 9, Floor-I, Plot – 51, Kapadia Chamber, Devji Ratansi Marg, ……………… Respondent Chinchbunder, Mumbai – 400009 Pan: Aalcs7233B Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1) Room No.653, Aaykar Bhawan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr.AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

value of Rs. 100 and premium of Rs. 220. For the purpose of determining the fair market value of such shares as per section 56(2)(viia), Rule 11UA of Income Tax rules is applicable. As per clause (c), the fair market value of unquoted shares and securities other than ... merchant banker would be needed. Thus, there is no dispute on the issue that for determining the excessive premium for the purpose of section 56(2)(viia), provision of rule 11UA are applicable and as per clause (c) of sub rule (1) of 11UA, no specific formula for the valuation

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

shall not be allowed as deduction. The grounds raised by the assessee in CO No.66/Chny/2025 are as 4. follows: 1. Non-applicability of Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act 1.1 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Chennai-19 ('learned CIT(A)'), after duly examining the facts of the case ... rightly held that the provisions of Section 56(2)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act') would not be applicable for buyback of own shares by a company. 1.2 The learned CIT(A) has rightly held that the legislative intent behind the provisions of Section 56(2)(viia

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

shall not be allowed as deduction. The grounds raised by the assessee in CO No.66/Chny/2025 are as 4. follows: 1. Non-applicability of Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act 1.1 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Chennai-19 ('learned CIT(A)'), after duly examining the facts of the case ... rightly held that the provisions of Section 56(2)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act') would not be applicable for buyback of own shares by a company. 1.2 The learned CIT(A) has rightly held that the legislative intent behind the provisions of Section 56(2)(viia

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)

CBDT has issued Circular No.10 of 2018, which is reproduced for our reference: “Circular No. 10/2018 [F.NO. 173/626/2018-ITA.I], DATED 31-12-2018 Section 56(2)(viia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') provides for taxation of income where a company in which public are not substantially interested ('specified company ... company from a person for no or inadequate consideration. 2. It has been represented before the Board that the term 'receives' used in section 56(2)(viia) of the Act, being of wider import and might lead to taxation of income in the cases where the shares are received

SAB DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 1071/CHANDI/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 731/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Sab Developers Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer Sco 49-50, Madhya Marg Ward 5(1), बनाम/ Vs. Sector-26, Chandigarh-160019 Aaykar Bhawan, R.No.619 Sector 17E, Chandigarh-160017 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aakcs-6537-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By Shri Ashwani Kumar (Ca), Shri Aditya Kumar : (Ca) & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal (Ca) - Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 08-07-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 20-12-2016. The Sole Issue That Fall For Our Consideration Is Addition Of Rs.129.11 Lacs As Made By Ld. Ao Invoking The Provisions Of Sec.56(2)(Viia).

For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 113Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 159Section 56(2)(viia)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT

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)

further appeal the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition stating that- The contention of the assessee cannot be accepted. Section 56(2)(viia), as applicable to the relevant assessment year, clearly provided that where a company receives shares for consideration less than their fair market value, the difference is liable ... shares in question. The argument of the assessee that Chapter XII-DA was introduced subsequently does not exclude the applicability of section 56(2)(viia), which, even prior to such insertion. covered transactions involving receipt of shares at a value below their fair market value. The economic substance

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

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mehta, Addl. Sr. DR
Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(via)Section 56(2)(viia)

Ground No 6 above the Learned National Appeal Centre Delhi erred in confirming the aggregate addition of Rs.2,70,55,520/- under section 56(2)(viia) of the Act in complete disregard that the provisions of said 56(2)(viia) of the Act which was introduced with effect from

NISHANT PAREKH- LEGAL HEIR OF MINA PAREKH,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 215/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.215/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-2016) Nishant Parekh – Legal Heir Of Vs. Income Tax Officer Mina Parekh Aaykar Bhavan 322 Madhav Square, Opp 361001, Gujrat Avantika Complex, Limda Lane Road, Gujrat-361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aanpp9471F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 147Section 250Section 68

loss or to convert the unaccounted money into white money, and that was the reason that the Government has introduced Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act. The assessee received the bogus long term capital gain (LTCG) and that is why, section

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)

illegal. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the treatment made out by the AO of applying section 56(2) (viia) on allotment of shares through share application, and thereby making the addition as confirmed by the Ld.. CIT(A) is contrary ... illegal. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the treatment made out by the AO of applying section 56(2) (viia) on allotment of confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the provisions of law and the allotment of shares does not fall

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

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)

illegal. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the treatment made out by the AO of applying section 56(2) (viia) on allotment of shares through share application, and thereby making the addition as confirmed by the Ld.. CIT(A) is contrary ... illegal. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the treatment made out by the AO of applying section 56(2) (viia) on allotment of confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the provisions of law and the allotment of shares does not fall

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)

created only at the time of issue. The Explanatory Memorandum to Finance Bill 2010 explaining the rationale of introduction of the said section 56(2)(viia), interalia provided that, "In order to prevent the practice of transferring unlisted shares at prices much below their market value, it is proposed ... Firm or a Company" Thus it is amply clear and duly evident from above that the legislative intent of introduction of section 56(2)(viia) was to prevent the practice of transferring of unlisted shares at prices below their fair market value. The expression "transfer" has altogether different connotation

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)

created only at the time of issue. The Explanatory Memorandum to Finance Bill 2010 explaining the rationale of introduction of the said section 56(2)(viia), interalia provided that, "In order to prevent the practice of transferring unlisted shares at prices much below their market value, it is proposed ... Firm or a Company" Thus it is amply clear and duly evident from above that the legislative intent of introduction of section 56(2)(viia) was to prevent the practice of transferring of unlisted shares at prices below their fair market value. The expression "transfer" has altogether different connotation

AMAN HOLDINGS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT - 1, DELHI

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

ITA 660/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Meenal Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Section 127(2)Section 127(2)(a)Section 143(3)Section 263

income vis-a-vis high investments and loans.' On review, the PCIT observed that the AO failed to examine the applicability of section 56(2)(viia) concerning the purchase of un quoted equity shares below fair market value, as per Rule 11 UA. Concluding that the assessment order was erroneous

Showing 1–20 of 86 · Page 1 of 5

Section 56(2)(viia) — 86 judgments | BharatTax | BharatTax