← All Phrases

“Section 56(2)(viia)”

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

The decision most relied on for Section 56(2)(viia) is CIT v. Tin Box Company (260 ITR 637), cited in 80 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 56(2)(viia)

CIT v. Tin Box Company
260 ITR 637 · 2003 · High Court
80
citing judgments

When an assessee possesses sufficient interest-free funds, it is presumed that any interest-free advances or investments made are from these funds, preventing disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii). This principle applies if own capital and interest-free loans exceed the interest-free advances given.

CIT v. Green Infra Ltd.
78 Taxmann.com 340 · 2017 · High Court
56
citing judgments

The valuation of shares is not relevant for determining the genuineness of a transaction under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Interest income earned on the deposit of surplus funds is taxable as business income.

DSJ Communication v. DCIT
222 Taxmann 129 · 2014 · High Court
22
citing judgments

Reopening of assessment under Section 147 is invalid if mandatory sanction or approval under Section 151 is not obtained from the prescribed authority. The AO must apply their mind and not proceed in a mechanical manner.

Sudhir Menon HUF v. ACIT
45 Taxmann.com 176 · 2014 · ITAT
21
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.

Vora Financial Services (P) Ltd. v. ACIT
96 Taxmann.com 88 · 2018 · ITAT
10
citing judgments

Shares bought back by a company are not considered the property of the assessee for the purpose of Section 56(2)(viia), as a company cannot hold its own shares as property.

Judgments citing Section 56(2)(viia)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Buhari Holdings Privae Limited, Chennai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 325/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.325/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Buhari Holdings Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax, No.4, Buhari Towers, Corporate Circle 1(2) Moores Road, Chennai. Chennai 600 006. [Pan Aaacb 2679M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 28

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार

M/S. Vishal Victory Oiltech Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 7(2), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 715/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Aug 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viia)

made addition of Rs. 7,54,38,625/- against the purchase of shares at lower fair market value which attracts Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act. The AO I.T.A. No.: 715/KOL/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s. Vishal Victory Oiltech Pvt. Ltd. in the assessment order held that the appellant

Indian Durobuild (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Vijay, PCIT, Delhi-04, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1447/DEL/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. No. 1447/Del/2021 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Indian Durobuild (P.) Ltd. Vs. Pcit Pra Tax India D-28, Delhi - 4 South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi-53 Pan: Aaacs 6592 G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viia)Section 56(2)(visa)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS

Assistant Commission Er of Income Tax-Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Hathway Patiala Cable Private Limited, Rahejas Corner of Main Avenue

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 555/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2016-17 Assistant Commissioner Hathway Patiala Cable Of Income Tax- Circle- Private Limited, 4Th Floor, 4(2)(1) Room No. 640, Vs. V. P. Road, 6Th Floor, Santacruz, West, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai 400054. M. K. Road, Pan: Aabch3937R Mumbai 400 020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. P.D. Chougule (Addl. Cit), Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 22 . 05 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25 . 06 . 2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. P.D. Chougule (Addl. CIT), SR. D.R
Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)(viia)

sheet and other financial documents of the company. The Assessee, however, did not file these details. The AO then invoked the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act and added the entire amount of Rs.9,86,01,905/- as income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order

Maa Chintpoorni Tie-Up Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O, Ward-1(2), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 541/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Himadri Mukhopadhyay, Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

shall decide the appeal on both the grounds, i.e. relating to FMV of shares for the purpose of section 56(2)(viia) and also recompute the disallowance u/s. 14A in accordance with law. Accordingly, we remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for disposal

Maa Chintpoorni Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-1(2), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 540/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Himadri Mukhopadhyay, Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

shall decide the appeal on both the grounds, i.e. relating to FMV of shares for the purpose of section 56(2)(viia) and also recompute the disallowance u/s. 14A in accordance with law. Accordingly, we remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for disposal

Ecotech Builders Private Limited, Noida vs. Pr, CIT, Noida

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1601/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Yr: 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(b)

satisfied with the reply and accepted the returned income. It is submitted that there was inadvertent error in the valuation report, where Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act was mentioned instead of Section 56(2)(viib). It was pointed out that in proceedings before the PCIT, even the valuer ... based on the Fair Market Value (FMV) Method in terms of the rules 11U & 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, specified under section 56(2) (viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 8.1 But when we go thoroughly to the report and computation it comes up that the computation

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

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Aadhaar Wholesale Trading and Distribution Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2653/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri, S Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri. Madhur Agrawal
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI, S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Aadhaar Wholesale Trading and Distribution Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2651/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri, S Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri. Ajay Chandra &
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI, S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Aadhaar Wholesale Trading and Distribution Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2650/MUM/2023[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri, S Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri. Ajay Chandra &
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI, S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Aadhaar Wholesale Trading and Distribution Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2646/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri, S Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri. Ajay Chandra &
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI, S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Aadhaar Wholesale Trading and Distribution Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2635/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri, S Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri. Ajay Chandra &
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI, S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. M/S. Gujarat Infra Pipes Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 987/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR and Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 43BSection 50C

Even the legislative history shows that gifts received by companies other than certain kind of shares by certain category of companies mentioned under section 56(2)(viia) and (viib) are not taxable under Income-tax Act or any other Act. During the period, when Gift Tax Act was in existence ... certain kind of shares by certain category of companies only further need to be taxed and accordingly the legislature brought provisions of section 56(2)(viia) and 56(2)(vilb) of Income-tax Act in the statute with effect from 01/06/2010 and 01.04.2013 respectively, but any other gift by companies

Gujarat Infrapipes Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 813/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR and Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 43BSection 50C

Even the legislative history shows that gifts received by companies other than certain kind of shares by certain category of companies mentioned under section 56(2)(viia) and (viib) are not taxable under Income-tax Act or any other Act. During the period, when Gift Tax Act was in existence ... certain kind of shares by certain category of companies only further need to be taxed and accordingly the legislature brought provisions of section 56(2)(viia) and 56(2)(vilb) of Income-tax Act in the statute with effect from 01/06/2010 and 01.04.2013 respectively, but any other gift by companies

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Electrical & Electronics India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6923/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit Electrical & Electronics Central Circle-13 India Ltd. New Delhi Vs. Business Communication Centre, 21 Parsi Church Street, Opp. 18 Ezra Street, Kolkata West Bengal - 700001 Pan No.Aaace5419J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vivek Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Respondent By Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Advocate Sh. Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate Sh. Shailesh Gupta, Ca Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 10/11/2023 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Preferred Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-26, New Delhi Dated 27.08.2018 Pertaining To A.Y.2015-16. 2. The Grievance Of The Revenue Read As Under :- 1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Hon'Ble Cit(A) Is Erred In Deleting The Addition To Rs.5,63,34,120/- U/S 56(2)(Viia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Hon'Ble Cit(A) Is Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.16,06,000/-On Account Of Business Loss Incurred On Sales Of Shree Shaleen Taxtiles Ltd. 3. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Hon'Ble Cit(A) Is Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,59,777/-On Account Of Business Loss On The Valuation Of Shares Of M/S Cressanda Solution Ltd. 4. The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Erroneous & Not Tenable In Law & On Facts. 5. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter Or Amend Any/All Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or During The Course Of The Hearing Of The Appeal.

Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viia)

shares. Assessee furnished the necessary details and explained that it is a company in which public are substantially interested and, therefore, provisions of section 56(2) (viia) do not apply. 7. The AO examined the details furnished by the assessee in the light of the provisions of section 56(2 ... firm belief that the assessee is not a company in which public are substantially interested and applying the provisions of section 56(2) (viia). The AO made the addition of Rs.57372600/-. 8. Proceeding further the AO found that the assessee has claimed set off of loss in shares against income

M/S. Riya Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 108/RPR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss) A No. 01/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Riya Real Estates Private Limited 308, 3Rd Floor, Ceejay House, Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Mumbai (Mh)-400 018 Pan : Aadcr8769B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 153DSection 250Section 56(2)(viia)

grossly erred in confirming an addition of Rs.459,92,50,000/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act which is highly unjustified, unwarranted, unsustainable, not proper on facts, dehors any incriminating material or documents seized in the course of search ... Allottees. (v). Consolidated Chart depicting Calculation of FMV of Equity Shares of Akshata Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. on various 'Valuation Date(s)' as per Section 56(2)(viia) r.w. Rule 11U/11UA. (vi). Copy of Acknowledgment of Return of Income, Computation of Total Income, Annual Report & Audited Financial Statements of Akshata Mercantile

Chandhok Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 200/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 200/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Chandhok Cold Storage Private Limited Ph No.100/28, Bilaspur Road, Ravigram S.O, Raipur-492 001 Pan : Aadcc8354P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 224Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Anwar Hussain Khan, Bulandshahr vs. ACIT, Circle, Bulandshahr

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 2955/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Shri Chandra Mohan Gargshri Anwar Hussain Khan Vs. Acit S/O. Shri Maqshood Circle Hussain, C/O. Royal Gas Bulandshahr Services, G.T. Road Khurja, Bulandshahr Pan No. Aamph 9619 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv. Revenue By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.10.2023

Section 56(2)(vii)

share as per the value mentioned in the purchase deed is Rs. 49,80,000/-. The AO has applied the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) (b) and added the difference of Rs. 74,55,500/- to the total income. The appellant is contending that the said land ... stock in trade and therefore, provisions of section 56(2) (viia) (b) are not applicable. In the remand report, the AO has argued that the documents produced by the appellant are self drafted and self arranged and have been created just to avoid mischief of section 56(2)(viia

Kanti Commercial (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

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

ITA 574/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 119Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viia)

fair market value and the total purchase consideration of Rs.4,45,68,174/- of Rs.4,45,68,174/- in light of provision of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act, further made addition of Rs.10,15,07,000/- on the ground that investment has been purchased from opening debtors ... above addition, was of the opinion that shares which have been routed at Rs.10 per share was in violation of provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act. The relevant porition of the assessment order are as under:- “7. As per the assessee submission, it may be noted that