← 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)

Aman Growth Fund Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 659/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 659/Del/2021, A.Y. 2015-16 M/S. Aman Growth Fund Vs. Pr. Cit(Central), Private Limited Delhi-2 L-4, Green Park Extension New Delhi Pan : Aaaca0525B Appellant Respondent

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

that case, the ld. PCIT intervened and invoked Section 263 to hold that the issue of applicability of Section 56(2)(viia) was not examined by the AO. The Tribunal following the various jurisdictional Delhi High Court decisions held that the AO within the parameter of scrutiny had undertaken

ACIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi vs. Ansal Condominium Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 760/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, Advocate; &For Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 56(2)(viia)

facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.24,01,57,001/- under section 56(2)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of difference in valuation of shares as per book value and the value adopted ... Assessment order came to be passed on 29/12/2017 by making an addition of Rs. 24,01,57,001/- by invoking the provisions of Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act and further made addition of Rs.8,50,046/- u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income

Parveen Commodity Brokers (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 19(3), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5173/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Department by: . Rajesh Dhanesta. SrFor Respondent: . Rajesh Dhanesta. Sr
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 29Section 56(2)(viia)

basis adopted by the learned Assessing Officer and upheld by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to invoke the provision contained in Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act on the shares held as stock in trade and holding the same as gift income is factually incorrect, legally misconceived

Tpg Growth II Makets Pte Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 4 raised by the Appellant is partly allowed

ITA 1387/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Dinesh BafnaFor Respondent: Dr. Samuel Pitta
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 5Section 9Section 92C(3)

purchase consideration was treated as income chargeable to tax under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’ in terms of Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act. 5 3 On the issue of sale of Shares of 110,95,81,200 71,64,92,560 QNPL to SIPL: TPO concluded that ... Draft Assessment Order, dated 15/06/2021, the Assessing Officer proposed an addition of INR 83,60,61,408/- under Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act. 27 27.2. In the Objections filed by the Appellant before DRP against the Draft Assessment Order, dated 15/06/2021, the DRP granted relief to the Appellant

Allianz International Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 2(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3828/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 11USection 56(2)Section 56(2)(viia)

2. The dispute in the present is confined to addition of an amount of Rs.2,12,161 made by the Assessing Officer under Section 56(2)(viia) of the Income-Tax Act,1961. 3. Briefly, the facts are, assessee is a resident corporate entity. For the assessment year under dispute ... valuation report determining the value of shares at Rs.99.13 per share, in terms of Rule 11UA. 8. Undisputedly, invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has treated the difference between the sale price and FMV of the shares of the assessee as income

Chhattisgarh Metaliks and Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer -3(3), Raipur

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

ITA 114/RPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.114/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Chhattisgarh Metaliks & Alloys Private Limited Mohini B-5, Merlin Jayashree Vihar, Mandi Gate, Pandri Tarai, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aadcc9242J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(3), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: None
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

fact, we find that the CBDT vide its Circular No.10 of 2018, dated 31.12.2018, had earlier clarified that the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act shall not be applicable in cases of receipt of shares by the specified company or firm as a result of fresh issuance

Grameen Impact Investment India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. National -E Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2375/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Grameen Impact Investments India National-E-Assessment Pvt. Ltd., Centre, 306, 3Rd Floor, A Wing, Devroop Vs. New Delhi-110 001. Building, 36, Turner Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aaacr 9005 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. K. Shivaram & Mr. Shashi Bekal, Ars : Revenue By Mr. Satyapal Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/12/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 Grameen Impact Investments India Dy. Cit-13(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 229, Aayakar 306, 3Rd Floor, A Wing, Devroop Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Building, 36, Turner Road, Bandra Mumbai-400050. West, Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aaacr 9005 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. K. Shivaram & Mr. Shashi
Section 56

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM

DCIT Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai vs. Venture Lighting India Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 3171/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri N. Arjun Raj, CA
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viia)

assessee at Rs.89/- per share as against fair market value adopted by AO at Rs.115.59 per share by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act. 6. The brief facts are that the assessee company has brought back shares from its holding company M/s. Advance Lighting Technology ... assessee has purchased the shares for a consideration which is less than the fair market value in term of provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act r.w.Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules (hereinafter the ‘Rules’). According to AO, the value per share as per Rule 11UA

Jt. CIT(OSD)-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Tata Capital Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by Revenue is dismissed appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2109/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 7060/मुं/ 2017 ("न.व. 2014-15) आअसं. 1515/मुं/ 2019("न.व. 2015-16) Tata Capital Limited, 11Th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel,Mumbai – 400 013 Pan:Aadcp-9147-P ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 2(3)(1), Room No.552, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 61/मुं/ 2018 ("न.व. 2014-15) आअसं. 2109/मुं/ 2019("न.व. 2015-16) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 2(3)(1),/Jcit (Osd) 2(3)(1) Room No.552, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Tata Capital Limited, 11Th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel,Mumbai – 400 013 Pan:Aadcp-9147-P ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Prakash Mane
Section 14ASection 56(2)(viia)

shares. The Assessing Officer had attributed entire consideration paid by the assessee for acquisition of shares and thereafter wrongly invoked the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act to make the addition of Rs.10,13,74,200/-. The ld.Counsel for the assessee further pointed that assessee

Tata Capital Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by Revenue is dismissed appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1515/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 7060/मुं/ 2017 ("न.व. 2014-15) आअसं. 1515/मुं/ 2019("न.व. 2015-16) Tata Capital Limited, 11Th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel,Mumbai – 400 013 Pan:Aadcp-9147-P ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 2(3)(1), Room No.552, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 61/मुं/ 2018 ("न.व. 2014-15) आअसं. 2109/मुं/ 2019("न.व. 2015-16) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 2(3)(1),/Jcit (Osd) 2(3)(1) Room No.552, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Tata Capital Limited, 11Th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel,Mumbai – 400 013 Pan:Aadcp-9147-P ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Prakash Mane
Section 14ASection 56(2)(viia)

shares. The Assessing Officer had attributed entire consideration paid by the assessee for acquisition of shares and thereafter wrongly invoked the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act to make the addition of Rs.10,13,74,200/-. The ld.Counsel for the assessee further pointed that assessee

Tata Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by Revenue is dismissed appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7060/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 7060/मुं/ 2017 ("न.व. 2014-15) आअसं. 1515/मुं/ 2019("न.व. 2015-16) Tata Capital Limited, 11Th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel,Mumbai – 400 013 Pan:Aadcp-9147-P ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 2(3)(1), Room No.552, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 61/मुं/ 2018 ("न.व. 2014-15) आअसं. 2109/मुं/ 2019("न.व. 2015-16) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 2(3)(1),/Jcit (Osd) 2(3)(1) Room No.552, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Tata Capital Limited, 11Th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel,Mumbai – 400 013 Pan:Aadcp-9147-P ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Prakash Mane
Section 14ASection 56(2)(viia)

shares. The Assessing Officer had attributed entire consideration paid by the assessee for acquisition of shares and thereafter wrongly invoked the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act to make the addition of Rs.10,13,74,200/-. The ld.Counsel for the assessee further pointed that assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. M/S Bioworth India Private Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 679/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, C.A by RevenueFor Respondent: Shri K Sankar Ganesh, JCIT (DR) by
Section 133(6)Section 37

deserves to be deleted. 5.8 It is also relevant to mention that, it was only by the Finance Act, 2010, that provision of Section 56(2)(viia) was then inserted by the Legislature and therein the 'book value' method was prescribed for valuation of the adequacy of consideration paid ... purchaser for acquiring shares of an unquoted company. The provisions of Section 56(2)(viia) was made effective from 01.06.2010 and was therefore applicable from AY 201112 and onwards. It is further submitted that Section 56(2)(viia) brings to tax the difference between the price at which unquoted shares

ITO-12(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Mystical Infratech Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4266/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shr Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.4266/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Income Tax Officer- M/S. Mystical Infaratech Pvt. Ltd., 12(3)(4),Room No.147A, 1St बिधम/ Ground Floor, D. B.House,, Floor ,Ayankar Bhavan, Vs. Gen A.K.Vaidya Marg, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 Mumbai-400 063. 020. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aagcm1049J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri. Nimesh Yadav( Cit Dr) प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. A.K.Ghosh , Pooja Ramder , Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 22.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 19.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against Order Dated 30.03.2017, Passed By Cit (Appeals)-20 Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) For Ay 2011-12. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: Shri. Nimesh Yadav( CIT DR)For Respondent: Shri. A.K.Ghosh , Pooja
Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(viia)

page 4 to 12 of the assessment order. In sum and substance, the assessee’s contention was that firstly, the provision of section 56(2)(viia) does not apply to other allotment of equity /preference shares; secondly, the equity shares in SLS and DBPPL were acquired by the assessee company ... I.T.A. No. 4266/Mum/2017 M/s. Mystical Infaratech Pvt. Ltd observation for deleting the entire addition made by the AO reads as under:- 5.7 The. Section 56(2)(viia) applies to a purchase of shares by a person from another person who had held the shares, prior to their transfer

M/S. Ukn Properties Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1739/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 56(2)(vii)

noticed that the assessee has purchased the shares at a price lower than the market value and therefore invoked the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act to make an addition of Rs.6,95,35,940 under the head ‘income from other sources’ by holding as under ... Waterline Hotels Private Limited Total 6,95,35,940 7.2 The assessee was asked to explain why the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 should not be attracted in its case and the shortfall in payment of premium to the FMV of the shares

Adibhuta Investmen Ts Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-3, Mumbai

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

ITA 679/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2017-18
Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(viia)

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” Bench, Mumbai Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (JM) I.T.A. No. 679/Mum/2022 (A.Y

Dy CIT. Circle-1, Thane vs. M/S Travecom Global P. Ltd., Bhayander

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 59/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Circle 1 V. M/S. Travecom Global Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 22, B-Wing B/607, Krishnakunj 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park Salasar Brij Bhoomi Wagle Industrial Estate Bhayander (W)-401101 Thane (W)-400604 Pan: Aaect8729Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji Department By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Kshema Geo Holdings Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application is dismissed

ITA 598/BANG/2021[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Rajinish Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Sri.Praveen Karanth, CIT -DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 56(2)(viia)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM ITA

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

ITA 7061/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viia)Section 56(2)(viib)

present case. Hence, on this issue also we uphold the well reasoned order of learned CIT(A). 26. Apropos issue of addition under section 56(2)(viia) of the I.T. Act : During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. held that the assessee bought 100% shares (i.e. 19,160 shares ... That therefore, it was evident that the consideration was more than the fair market value (FMV) of the shares. That further, as per section 56(2)(viia) of the Act and Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 it had 21 M/s. Kilitch Healthcare India Ltd. acquired shares

25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Range -6(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 3085/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 56(1)

only under the head capital gain. Accordingly, the provisions of section 56(1) cannot be resorted to.” So far as the applicability of Section 56(2)(viia)of the Act is concerned, 10. the same is reproduced as under: - “(viia) where a firm or a company not being a company ... without or inadequate consideration. In the present case, the assessee is the recipient of shares of a listed company. Accordingly, the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) cannot apply. In view of the above, the CIT(A)’s observations that the provisions of section 56(1) do not apply

ITO 6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. 25 Fps Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2798/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 56(1)

only under the head capital gain. Accordingly, the provisions of section 56(1) cannot be resorted to.” So far as the applicability of Section 56(2)(viia)of the Act is concerned, 10. the same is reproduced as under: - “(viia) where a firm or a company not being a company ... without or inadequate consideration. In the present case, the assessee is the recipient of shares of a listed company. Accordingly, the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) cannot apply. In view of the above, the CIT(A)’s observations that the provisions of section 56(1) do not apply