← All Phrases

“Section 2(24)(xvi)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(24)(xvi)31 judgments

TECHPARK HOTELS PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ADDI. CIT SPECIAL RANGE-9, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 9450/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumartechpark Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Addl. Cit, Ground Floor, Central Wing, Special Range-9, Thapar House 124, Janpath, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aabce5833H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Shri Tavish Verma, Adv. Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra Sr. Dr Department By Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against Order Dated 11.09.2019 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2017 Of The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Declaring Loss Of Rs.23,06,28,106/- On 30.11.2015. Notice U/S 143(2) Dated 22.09.2016 Was Issued. Notices U/S 142(1) Were Issued. Sh. Nikhil Agarwal & Shri Nirmal Malpani, Ca Appeared & Filed Details. On Completion Of Proceedings, Ld. Ao Vide Order Dated Techpark Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234DSection 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

share premium received by the Respondent-Assessee is without any basis and contrary to provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) read with Section 2(24)(xvi) of the Act. Further, the AO held that the Respondent-Assessee has failed to submit any basis of projection. He also held the view

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3991/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 41(1)Section 801C

full agreement with the learned Tribunal that exemption from excise duty does not fall in the definition of income as envisaged under Section 2(24)(xvi) of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 the Act and that the amount

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3971/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 41(1)Section 801C

full agreement with the learned Tribunal that exemption from excise duty does not fall in the definition of income as envisaged under Section 2(24)(xvi) of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 the Act and that the amount

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

ITA 992/CHANDI/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

under Section 56(2)(viii). The Ld. AR pointed out that Section 56(2)(viii) does not have any corresponding mention in Section 2(24)(xvi) or elsewhere, and hence, any amount described under that clause would not automatically form part of taxable income. 30. It was further contended that

ARJESH KUMAR,PATIALA vs. ITO NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

ITA 876/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

under Section 56(2)(viii). The Ld. AR pointed out that Section 56(2)(viii) does not have any corresponding mention in Section 2(24)(xvi) or elsewhere, and hence, any amount described under that clause would not automatically form part of taxable income. 30. It was further contended that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

ITA 531/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

under Section 56(2)(viii). The Ld. AR pointed out that Section 56(2)(viii) does not have any corresponding mention in Section 2(24)(xvi) or elsewhere, and hence, any amount described under that clause would not automatically form part of taxable income. 30. It was further contended that

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

ITA 172/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

under Section 56(2)(viii). The Ld. AR pointed out that Section 56(2)(viii) does not have any corresponding mention in Section 2(24)(xvi) or elsewhere, and hence, any amount described under that clause would not automatically form part of taxable income. 30. It was further contended that

PAWAN KUMAR,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, FATEHABAD

ITA 1112/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

under Section 56(2)(viii). The Ld. AR pointed out that Section 56(2)(viii) does not have any corresponding mention in Section 2(24)(xvi) or elsewhere, and hence, any amount described under that clause would not automatically form part of taxable income. 30. It was further contended that

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

ITA 566/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

under Section 56(2)(viii). The Ld. AR pointed out that Section 56(2)(viii) does not have any corresponding mention in Section 2(24)(xvi) or elsewhere, and hence, any amount described under that clause would not automatically form part of taxable income. 30. It was further contended that

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

ITA 565/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

under Section 56(2)(viii). The Ld. AR pointed out that Section 56(2)(viii) does not have any corresponding mention in Section 2(24)(xvi) or elsewhere, and hence, any amount described under that clause would not automatically form part of taxable income. 30. It was further contended that

SAROJ CHAUDHARY BALA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD-4, PANCHKULA

ITA 635/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

under Section 56(2)(viii). The Ld. AR pointed out that Section 56(2)(viii) does not have any corresponding mention in Section 2(24)(xvi) or elsewhere, and hence, any amount described under that clause would not automatically form part of taxable income. 30. It was further contended that

SMT. SHANKRI DEVI,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT, PANCKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

ITA 596/CHANDI/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

under Section 56(2)(viii). The Ld. AR pointed out that Section 56(2)(viii) does not have any corresponding mention in Section 2(24)(xvi) or elsewhere, and hence, any amount described under that clause would not automatically form part of taxable income. 30. It was further contended that

ACIT-6(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. CITY CENTRE MALL NASHIK PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1820/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT D/R
Section 68

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON

ACIT-6(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. CITY CENTER MALL NASHIK PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1691/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT D/R
Section 68

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON

DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAX HOSPITALS AND ALLIED SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3085/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

share premium received by the Respondent-Assessee is without any basis and contrary to provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) read with Section 2(24)(xvi) of the Act. Further, the AO held that the Respondent-Assessee has failed to submit any basis of projection. He also held the view

DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAX HOSPITALS AND ALLIED SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3084/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

share premium received by the Respondent-Assessee is without any basis and contrary to provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) read with Section 2(24)(xvi) of the Act. Further, the AO held that the Respondent-Assessee has failed to submit any basis of projection. He also held the view

DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAX HOSPITALS AND ALLIED SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3083/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

share premium received by the Respondent-Assessee is without any basis and contrary to provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) read with Section 2(24)(xvi) of the Act. Further, the AO held that the Respondent-Assessee has failed to submit any basis of projection. He also held the view

KANGRA VALLEY GARDEN HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD DHARAMSHALA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, DHARAMSHALA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by

ITA 602/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)
Section 127(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253

ignoring that the same is not taxable in the hands of the appellant under section 56(2)(viib) read with section 5 and section 2(24)(xvi) of the Act. 7. The Ld. CIT(A)/Ld. AO have erred in levying interest under 234B

KANGRA VALLEY GARDEN HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD DHARAMSHALA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, DHARAMSHALA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by

ITA 601/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)
Section 127(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253

ignoring that the same is not taxable in the hands of the appellant under section 56(2)(viib) read with section 5 and section 2(24)(xvi) of the Act. 7. The Ld. CIT(A)/Ld. AO have erred in levying interest under 234B

KANGRA VALLEY GARDEN HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD DHARAMSHALA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, DHARAMSHALA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by

ITA 600/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)
Section 127(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253

ignoring that the same is not taxable in the hands of the appellant under section 56(2)(viib) read with section 5 and section 2(24)(xvi) of the Act. 7. The Ld. CIT(A)/Ld. AO have erred in levying interest under 234B

Showing 1–20 of 31 · Page 1 of 2