“Section 2(24)(xvi)”

Shaha Finlease Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax 13(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

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…. 11 Shaha Finlease

Capitalg International Llc (Formerly Known As Gc Aisa L.L.C.), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘K’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

DCIT-14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Jaymala Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dism

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13

taxable by a legal fiction under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act and the same is enumerated as Income in Section 2(24)(xvi) of the Act. same is enumerated as Income in Section 2(24)(xvi) of the Act. same is enumerated as Income in Section 2(24

M/S Monk Akarshala Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Blem/S. Monk Akarshala Private Limited V. Dcit – Circle – 2(2)(1) 4116 Oberoi Garden Estate Room No. 545 Chandivli Vlg Farm Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Near Chandivli Studio, Saki Naka Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai City - 400072 Pan: Aagcm4703K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Ajay Wadhwa & Ms. Manasi Vyas Department Represented By : Smt Mahita Nair

wherein the Hon’ble High Court held as under: - “12. In any event, the amendments incorporated in the definition of income under section 2(24)(xvi) and Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act were amendments which were to apply only from 1st April, 2013, i.., assessment year

Jayem Realty Management Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principle Comm. of Income Tax-1, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blejayam Realty Management Pvt Ltd., V. Pr.Cit Recondo Compound Room No. 330, 3Rd Floor Inside Municipal Asphalt Compound Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400030 Pan: Aaccj0004G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punamiya & Shri Himanshu Gandhi Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

applied in assessee's case." The assessee further submits that …. It is pertinent to note that the definition of income as provided under section 2(24)(xvi) of the Act at the relevant time did not define as income any consideration received for issue of share in excess of value ... This makes the assessment order erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue 5. The assessee has given the reference of section 2(24)(xvi) and has argued that its applicability with respect to amount received for issue of shares in in excess of value is not valid

Rakyan Beverages Private Limited, Raigarh vs. ACIT 5(3)(1), Mumbai

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

`IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Qmax Synthetics Private Limited, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailacit-4(3)(1) Vs. M/S Qmax Synthetics R. No. 649, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., 5-B/174, Aayakar Bhavan, Sanjay Building, Mittal Mumbai – 400 020 Industrial Estate, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacq0206D Respondent .. Appellant

been made taxable by a legal fiction under Section 56(2) (viib) of the Act and the same is enumerated as Income in Section 2(24)(xvi) of the Act, However, what is bought into the ambit of income is the premium received from a resident in excess