“Section 56(2)(viia)”

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Aachman Vanijya Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue and cross-objection by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

private companies and the assessee was asked to furnish the details of fair value of shares purchased for the purpose of Section 56(2)(viia) r.w.r 11UA. The assessee furnished the necessary details but the submissions of the assessee did not find any favour with the AO who completed ... shares have been received by the assessee before 01/06/2010 which has been confirmed by the AO in his report. Therefore, the provisions of Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act are not applicable. Addressing the additional ground, the ld. CIT(A) observed that no incriminating material regarding the purchase

Lupin Investments Private Limited (Successor to Zyma Laboratories Limited), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 14(2)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Thus, the appeal order should be set aside as being passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Ground No. 2 - Addition under section 56(2)(viia) of the Act 2.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming ... addition of Rs.34,71,17,122 made by the learned AO under section 56(2)(viia) of the Act on buy back of shares, without appreciating that in case of buy back of unlisted shares, the taxability is based on distributed income as per section 115QA

Rising Star Investment, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 26(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

assessment, assessee had made a categorical request for making a reference to the Department Valuation Officer (DVO) in terms of provisions contained in section 56(2)(viia). Ld. Assessing Officer has taken cognizance of the submissions made by the assessee for the request for reference to DVO. In this respect ... Rising Star Investment AY 2017-18 is admittedly less than 10% in the present case, we find that provisions of section 56(2)(viia) will have no application in the matter. Accordingly, the addition so as made by the ld. Assessing Officer stands deleted considering the merits of the case

Sapphire Foods India Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankar

order, to the total income of the Appellant had submitted that provisions of section 56(2)(viib) are not applicable and provisions of section 56(2)(viia) are also not applicable to their case. Hence the addition of Rs.30,30,25,394/- is erroneously upheld ... passed in misappreciation of facts and legal provisions. II] Without prejudice to the above grounds, no addition can be made even under section 56(2)(viia) on investment in the shares of SHRPL: 8. The ld. CIT(A) erred both in facts and in law in upholding the addition made

ACIT, Central Circle-1, Thane vs. Nakul Markhedkar, Thane

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

value of shares at Rs. 45.72 per share of TEPL and treated the difference of Rs. 40.72 as income from other sources under section 56(2)(viia) of the Act. The view taken by the AD was subsequently confirmed by the Id. CIT (A). In appeal, the Tribunal vide order

ACIT, Central Circle-1, Thane vs. Nakul Markhedkar, Thane

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

value of shares at Rs. 45.72 per share of TEPL and treated the difference of Rs. 40.72 as income from other sources under section 56(2)(viia) of the Act. The view taken by the AD was subsequently confirmed by the Id. CIT (A). In appeal, the Tribunal vide order

Navratan Management Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy.Comm Central Circle 8(4) Mumbai, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

trading purpose and not as an investment, so as to be categorized as capital assets “property”. While considering the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act, definition of “property” as defined in the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act, is required to be taken into ... securities referred to in sub clause (b)] and therefore any stock in trade, is not covered within the purview of the provision of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act. 6. The AO though considered the claim of the Assessee, however, by relying on the website “https://www.zaubacorp.com”, wherein

Utility Supply Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(4) Mumbai, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Padmavathy S

more than the purchase value per share and therefore he show caused the Assessee “as to why the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act should not be invoked for the purchase of such shares of and the differential amount {of the fair market value and purchase value ... should not be interpreted as investment without any cogent/valid reason. 1.6 In view thereof your goodself will appreciate that the provision of section 56(2)(viia) are not applicable on purchases of shares for trading purposes. In this connection support is taken from the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur

ITO-26(2)(1), Mumbai vs. S D N Company, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 2457/Mum/2024

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.126,98,69,717/- made u/s Section 56 (2)(viia) of the Act" 2. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition ... share aggregating to Rs.126,72,80,806/- as the fair value of shares of UFIPL and invoking the provisions of Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act, the AO made the addition of Rs.126,72,80,806/-. 7. 1. At this stage, it would be pertinent to refer

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

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

between existing shareholders and hence, there was no fresh infusion of funds in the company and in that case, the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act will not apply.The revenue is aggrieved. 4. Before the Tribunal, the assessee has furnished another valuation report dated 8th April

Pankaj Dhandharia, Mumbai vs. ACIT-22(1), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shrisunil Kumar Singh, Jm

assessment order under section 147 read with section 144B of the act on 6/11/2023 making an addition of Rs. 49,631,000/- under section 56 (2) (viia) of the act. Assessee aggrieved with the assessment order preferred an appeal before the learned CIT - A. i. Assessee objected that the original ... information available as there was a difference between the stamp duty valuation and sale consideration of the property which was taxable under section 56 (2) (viia) of the act and thus income had escaped the assessment. Further the assessee has neither submitted before the assessing officer nor before him that

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Samagra Wealthmax Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the learned AO is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Samagra Wealthmax Income Tax, Private Limited, Central Circle-3(4) 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre Room No. 1915, 19Th 37-40 Vs. Floor, Subhash Road, Air India Building, Vile Parle East, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 057 Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaqcs5451E

Limited; A.Y. 2018-19 rightly charged difference on account of price paid by assessee and FMV of shares as income of assessee under section 56(2)(viia) of The Act. We find that order of Vertex Projects LLp deals with the addition made u/s 56(2)(viia ... this regard, it is submitted that section 56(2)(viia) is applicable from 01.06.2010 to 31.03.2017. 023. Provision of section 2 (56) (via) the Act are as under: “(viia) where a firm or a company not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous

Gategroup Investments Singapore Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. Int Tax Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhangateway Investments Singapore Pte Ltd. ...... Appellant 1 Maritime Square, # 12-03 Harbour Front Centre Singapore-99 253 Pan No. : Aaecg1565B

case and in law, the learned AO / Hon’ble DRP has erred in making an addition of INR 10,57,65,000/- under section 56(2)(viia) of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO / Hon’ble DRP has erred ... applying the provision of section 56(2) (viia) of the Act on ‘Rights issue’ of equity shares. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO / Hon’ble DRP has erred in wrongly applying the provision of section 56(2) (viib