← All Phrases

“right to receive”

Judicial DoctrinesAccrualAccrual601 judgments

The decision most relied on for right to receive is CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. (358 ITR 295), cited in 935 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on right to receive

CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd.
358 ITR 295 · 2013 · Supreme Court
935
citing judgments

When an income or expenditure is revenue neutral across different assessment years, where any benefit derived is offset by a corresponding liability or reversal, no additional tax liability arises, particularly concerning income recognition under the mercantile system of accounting.

E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT
26 ITR 27 · 1954 · Supreme Court
256
citing judgments

Income is taxable only when it represents real income, not notional income. It accrues only when there is a vested right to receive it, typically upon the occurrence of a transfer or event, rather than merely on a time basis.

State Bank of Travancore v. CIT
158 ITR 102 · 1986 · Supreme Court
222
citing judgments

Under the mercantile system of accounting, interest income accrues and is taxable in the year it arises, even for "sticky" or doubtful loans, as the right to receive the income is paramount, not its actual receipt, provided there is an agreement for payment.

Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT
239 ITR 775 · 1999 · Supreme Court
215
citing judgments

For income tax purposes, the 'owner' of a property is the person who is entitled to receive income in their own right, bears the risks incidental to ownership, and utilizes the asset, even if the sale deed is not formally registered. This beneficial ownership is sufficient for claiming depreciation or capital gains exemption under relevant sections.

CIT v. Sitaldas Tirathdas
41 ITR 367 · 1961 · Supreme Court
146
citing judgments

Income is diverted by an overriding charge, and thus not taxable, when it never truly accrues to the assessee due to a prior obligation. Conversely, income that first accrues to the assessee and is then applied to discharge an obligation out of that income is taxable.

CIT v. D.P. Sandhu & Bros.
273 ITR 1 · 2005 · Supreme Court
140
citing judgments

Surrender of tenancy rights is a transfer of a capital asset, and the consideration received is a capital receipt subject to capital gains tax. If the cost of acquisition cannot be determined, the transfer of such an asset was not taxable under capital gains prior to the amendment of Section 55(2) in 1995.

Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT
82 ITR 835 · 1971 · Supreme Court
136
citing judgments

Income accrues when it becomes due, vesting the assessee with the right to claim the amount, even if payment is not immediate. It requires a corresponding liability from the other party to pay, emphasizing real rather than hypothetical accrual, particularly for assessees using the mercantile system of accounting.

CIT v. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd.
330 ITR 440 · 2011 · High Court
125
citing judgments

Interest income is taxable under the mercantile system of accounting even if it is not actually recovered, provided there is a right to receive it. The decision also touches upon the treatment of bad debts and provisions for doubtful debts under Section 36(1)(viia).

Judgments citing right to receive

Thyagarajan Rajkumar, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals in (i) ITA No

ITA 692/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT -DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

been deposited on an Escrow account by the purchaser. 3.6 This being the case, the assessee's contention that he has no right to receive any consideration towards share transfer or interest credited to the deposit in Escrow account is not acceptable. The company M/s Leadage Alloys India Ltd., whose ... consideration has been kept in Escrow account and the assessee has not received his share. However, this nowhere implies that assessee has no right to receive the sale consideration. The interest has been accrued on the deposits in the name of the assessee and the assessee 5 ITA No.691/Bang/2019

Tyagarajan Rajkumar, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals in (i) ITA No

ITA 691/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT -DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

been deposited on an Escrow account by the purchaser. 3.6 This being the case, the assessee's contention that he has no right to receive any consideration towards share transfer or interest credited to the deposit in Escrow account is not acceptable. The company M/s Leadage Alloys India Ltd., whose ... consideration has been kept in Escrow account and the assessee has not received his share. However, this nowhere implies that assessee has no right to receive the sale consideration. The interest has been accrued on the deposits in the name of the assessee and the assessee 5 ITA No.691/Bang/2019

Thyagarajan Rajkumar, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals in (i) ITA No

ITA 905/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT -DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

been deposited on an Escrow account by the purchaser. 3.6 This being the case, the assessee's contention that he has no right to receive any consideration towards share transfer or interest credited to the deposit in Escrow account is not acceptable. The company M/s Leadage Alloys India Ltd., whose ... consideration has been kept in Escrow account and the assessee has not received his share. However, this nowhere implies that assessee has no right to receive the sale consideration. The interest has been accrued on the deposits in the name of the assessee and the assessee 5 ITA No.691/Bang/2019

Thyagarajan Arunkumar, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals in (i) ITA No

ITA 904/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT -DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

been deposited on an Escrow account by the purchaser. 3.6 This being the case, the assessee's contention that he has no right to receive any consideration towards share transfer or interest credited to the deposit in Escrow account is not acceptable. The company M/s Leadage Alloys India Ltd., whose ... consideration has been kept in Escrow account and the assessee has not received his share. However, this nowhere implies that assessee has no right to receive the sale consideration. The interest has been accrued on the deposits in the name of the assessee and the assessee 5 ITA No.691/Bang/2019

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)

received on surrender of reserved plot to the Government is ex facie incorrect inasmuch as what we are really concerned with is the right to receive the TDR on the plot owned by the assessee, and not with the right to receive the TDR from the Government. The person getting

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)

received on surrender of reserved plot to the Government is ex facie incorrect inasmuch as what we are really concerned with is the right to receive the TDR on the plot owned by the assessee, and not with the right to receive the TDR from the Government. The person getting

ITO (International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mrs. Sanika Avadhoot Shilotri, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1880/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhincome Tax Officer Vs. Mrs. Sanika Avadhoot (International Taxation) Shilotri, 102, Varun, 4(2)(1), Room No. 1728, J.P. Road, Versova, 17Th Floor, Air India Andheri (W), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400061 Mumbai – 400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Amnps1767K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Jayant BhattFor Respondent: B.K. Bagchi
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

agreement made by the assessee. The ld. counsel has also contended that if the AO treat the same as transfer of right to receive residential property originally allotted against A3 – 3405 being replaced by new Flat No. 3907 in India Bull Sky Suites, then it falls under

Cox & Kings Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr. Commsioner of Income Tax Range -1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 3682/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalm/S. Cox & Kings Limited Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Turner Morrison Building Income Tax Range-1 16, Bank Street Mumbai Fort, Mumbai- 400 001 Pan/Gir No.Aaacc1921B (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 144C(5)Section 263

holding that the Appellant has without any cogent reasoning deferred / postponed the booking of CRS commission income without appreciating the fact that the right to receive such income was quantified and crystallized only after the Appellant entered into an agreement with Interglobe Technology Quotient Pvt Ltd ('Interglobe

M/S Irunway India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 229/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Irunway India Private Limited, Dcit, Vs. Regus Business Center, Office Circle – 3(1)(1), No.1015, Bengaluru. 10Th Floor, Tower-B, Unitech Cyber Park, Sector 39, Gurugram, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 003. Pan : Aabci 5613 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 37Section 40

these expenses by crediting a 'liability', the assessee had made a provision for expense by crediting 'expenses payable'. Further, since the vendor's right to receive such professional fees arose only after 31 March 2015 when an invoice was raised by it, the assessee did not deduct any taxes ... amount to provision account and not to the credit of respective agent's account. It further affirmed that the agents would get vested right to receive the commission only when they fulfill the obligations under the agreement for commission and accordingly held that provisions of section 194H

Shri M. Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1036/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153A

there will be no profit or gain which arises from the transfer of a capital asset. d. The Appellant did not acquire any right to receive income, inasmuch as such alleged right was dependent upon the necessary permissions being obtained. ITA Nos.1035 & 1036/Bang/2019 Page 27 of 78 e. This being ... case, in the circumstances, there was no debt owed to the Appellant. Hence, the Appellant has not acquired any right to receive income under the MOU. As such, no profits or gains 'arose' from the transfer of a capital asset. 28. The ld. AR submitted that the above principles

Shri M. Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1035/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153A

there will be no profit or gain which arises from the transfer of a capital asset. d. The Appellant did not acquire any right to receive income, inasmuch as such alleged right was dependent upon the necessary permissions being obtained. ITA Nos.1035 & 1036/Bang/2019 Page 27 of 78 e. This being ... case, in the circumstances, there was no debt owed to the Appellant. Hence, the Appellant has not acquired any right to receive income under the MOU. As such, no profits or gains 'arose' from the transfer of a capital asset. 28. The ld. AR submitted that the above principles

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy, by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 755/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

there will be no profit or gain which arises from the transfer of a capital asset. d. The Appellant did not acquire any right to receive income, inasmuch as such alleged right was dependent upon the necessary permissions being obtained. e. This being the case, in the circumstances, there ... debt owed to the Appellant. Hence, the Appellant has not acquired any right to receive income under the MOU. As such, no profits or gains 'arose' from the transfer of a capital asset. 24. The ld. AR submitted that the above principles are squarely covered by the ruling

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 754/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

there will be no profit or gain which arises from the transfer of a capital asset. d. The Appellant did not acquire any right to receive income, inasmuch as such alleged right was dependent upon the necessary permissions being obtained. e. This being the case, in the circumstances, there ... debt owed to the Appellant. Hence, the Appellant has not acquired any right to receive income under the MOU. As such, no profits or gains 'arose' from the transfer of a capital asset. 24. The ld. AR submitted that the above principles are squarely covered by the ruling

Late Smt.K>Leelavathy by L/R Shri.M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 753/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

there will be no profit or gain which arises from the transfer of a capital asset. d. The Appellant did not acquire any right to receive income, inasmuch as such alleged right was dependent upon the necessary permissions being obtained. e. This being the case, in the circumstances, there ... debt owed to the Appellant. Hence, the Appellant has not acquired any right to receive income under the MOU. As such, no profits or gains 'arose' from the transfer of a capital asset. 24. The ld. AR submitted that the above principles are squarely covered by the ruling

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 752/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

there will be no profit or gain which arises from the transfer of a capital asset. d. The Appellant did not acquire any right to receive income, inasmuch as such alleged right was dependent upon the necessary permissions being obtained. e. This being the case, in the circumstances, there ... debt owed to the Appellant. Hence, the Appellant has not acquired any right to receive income under the MOU. As such, no profits or gains 'arose' from the transfer of a capital asset. 24. The ld. AR submitted that the above principles are squarely covered by the ruling

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

In the result, for assessment year 2013 – 14 of appeal of the AO as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7550/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

Section 143(3)

when the debt is already written off by the assessee. This arrangement is stated by the assessee to be delinquency support agreement. The right to receive the above reimbursement of loss accrues to the assessee only when the bad debt is written off by the assessee in its books

The Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 950/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.950/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hotels Company Pcit-1 Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Ltd. Vs. 9Th Floor, Express Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Barrister Rajini Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact3957G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri K. K. Ved Revenue By: Shri Surendra Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “Re.: Validity Of Order U/S, 263; On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Dated 31 March 2021 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. Without Prejudice To The Above, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Pcit”) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 31 March 2021 U/S. 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri K. K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263Section 36

vested with Indian Govt. In the present case investment is made in foreign JV‟s and subsidiaries whereby Indian Govt. has not right to receive any tax therefore deduction is not allowable even u/s 57 (iii) of the I. T. Act, 1961. 4.7 Since, the assessee has not proved

M/S. United Spirits Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2701/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 12.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Alcoholic Beverage. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 28.11.2013 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessee’S Case Was Also Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.10.2016, Recommended Transfer Pricing Adjustments. The A.O., Thereafter, Passed A Draft Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2 It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/S.United Spirits Limited.

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(iii)

invoking the provisions of sec.92(1) of the Act. It was contended that the assessee does not have any contractual right to receive any income from the interest free loan given by the assessee to its AE. Hence, no “income” arises to the assessee from the interest free loan given

Rashmi Ameya Developers Housing & Estate Realtors P. Ltd., Palghar vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Thane

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1990/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Rashmi Ameya Developers Acit, Central Circle-3, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Road No. Housing & Estate Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Vs. D Ii, 01 02, Akanksha Commercial 16Z, Wagale Industrial Estate, Complex, Opp. Sajavat Complex, Thane-400 604. Achole Road, Nallasopara, Dist. Palghar-401 203. Pan No. Aaecr 8508 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Subhodh Ratnaparkhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Gupta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153C

order to be chargeable, the income should accrue cr arise to the assessee during the previous year. There must be a right to receive the income on a particular date. In the case of the appellant, the receipt in cash in respect of the land or FSI of the nature

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)

issuing is changed from year to year company/Board of the company. depending upon the availability of profits. 2 Payment of They have a right to receive Dividend on equity shares is paid, dividend dividend before any divided is paid after any dividend is paid on on equity shares preference shares