Section 78(2) — 7 judgments | BharatTax

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA. vs. TRUFORM TECHNO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1776/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 78(2)

deleting the addition of Rs.2,99,50,000/- made under Section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961, without considering the provisions of Section 78(2) of the Companies Act. (iii) The appellant craves leaves to add, modify, amend or alter any grounds of appeal at the time of, or before ... Nos.1775 & 1776/Ahd/2024 & C.O. No.42/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13) DCIT vs. Truform Techno Products Pvt. Ltd. Page 6 of 22 provision of Section 78(2) of the Companies Act was not complied and, therefore, the Assessing Officer had rightly treated the entire share premium contribution as revenue receipt

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. TRUFORM TECHNO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1775/AHD/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 78(2)

deleting the addition of Rs.2,99,50,000/- made under Section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961, without considering the provisions of Section 78(2) of the Companies Act. (iii) The appellant craves leaves to add, modify, amend or alter any grounds of appeal at the time of, or before ... Nos.1775 & 1776/Ahd/2024 & C.O. No.42/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13) DCIT vs. Truform Techno Products Pvt. Ltd. Page 6 of 22 provision of Section 78(2) of the Companies Act was not complied and, therefore, the Assessing Officer had rightly treated the entire share premium contribution as revenue receipt

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. JAMES HOTELS LTD, CHANDIGARH

ITA 552/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: The Said Resolution To Enhance Authorized Share Capital.

For Appellant: Shri R.K. KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT, DR

Section 143(2)Section 269SSection 271D

Advisory Services (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 557 (Bombay) wherein it was held that "even if assessee had breached provisions of section 78(2) of Companies Act, 1956, it would be penalized by provisions of Companies Act and breach would never turn a capital receipt into revenue receipt

DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. GREEN INFRA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7529/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vartik ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam

Section 250Section 260ASection 56(1)Section 61Section 78(2)

without having Financial Worth to fetch such premium and the said premium had been flown out from the designated account in violation of Section 78(2) of the Company Act and hence lost its character of being treated as share premium and accordingly attracted the taxing provisions under the Income

THE ACIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ASSOCIATED CEMENT CO., MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed while the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 5259/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2004-2005

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Mishra

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH, MUMBAI Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice President Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member Assistant

M/S. ACC LTD ( FORMELY KNOWN AS THE ASSOCIATED CEMEMTN COMPANIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed while the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 4895/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2004-2005

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Mishra

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH, MUMBAI Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice President Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member Assistant

PRAMOD MITTAL

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

ITA - 67 / 2012HC Delhi11 Oct 2012

For Appellant: “Whether the Tribunal fell into error in upholding the penalty

Section 170Section 170(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 78(2)

firm. The Assessing Officer (AO), the CIT (A) and later the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) rejected the claim on the ground that Section 78(2) did not entitle the assessee to it. On appeal, this Court affirmed that view and also held as follows: “5. It will be appropriate ... partnership firm and individual are two separate taxable entities or persons under the Act. 7. There is no contradiction between Section 78(2) and Section 170(1). They provide for different situations. Section 170(1) provides for a situation where a person carrying on business or profession is succeeded

“Section 78(2)”