“Section 56(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 56Section 56(2)1,770 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 56(2) is Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. ITO (322 ITR 283), cited in 1,283 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 56(2)

Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. ITO

322 ITR 283 · 2010 · Supreme Court

1,283

citing judgments

The interest income earned by a cooperative society from investing its surplus funds in fixed deposits with banks is not "derived from" its eligible business activities and is taxable as "income from other sources" under Section 56, thus not qualifying for deduction under Section 80P.

Pr. CIT v. Totagars

395 ITR 611 · 2017 · High Court

1,074

citing judgments

Interest income earned by a cooperative society from surplus deposits or investments held with a cooperative bank is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act.

Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT

431 ITR 1 · 2021 · Supreme Court

999

citing judgments

Section 80P(4) serves as a proviso to Section 80P(1) and (2), excluding only cooperative banks that are cooperative societies and possess an RBI license for banking business. Its purpose is to exclude cooperative banks operating like commercial banks that lend money to the public.

CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.

332 ITR 167 · 2011 · High Court

897

citing judgments

The Commissioner cannot revise an assessment under Section 263 merely because the assessment order does not explicitly reflect an inquiry, or because the Commissioner holds a different opinion. An inquiry, even if considered inadequate, or an assessment based on a plausible view by the Assessing Officer after due examination, does not automatically make the order erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.

Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. v. ITO

230 Taxmann 309 · 2015 · High Court

527

citing judgments

A cooperative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) if it is engaged in cooperative activities. It also clarifies the allowability of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income received from investments made in cooperative banks, after duly considering the Supreme Court's decision in Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd.

Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. v. ACIT

397 ITR 1 · 2017 · Supreme Court

499

citing judgments

A co-operative credit society engaged in banking business with the general public, accepting deposits from non-members and advancing loans to non-members, is treated as a co-operative bank. Such a society falls under the exclusionary clause of Section 80P(4) and is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

Totgar's Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. ITO

188 Taxmann 282 · 2010 · Supreme Court

486

citing judgments

Interest income earned by a co-operative society from investments, particularly with co-operative banks, is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P as it is not attributable to the core business activities of the society and constitutes "other income", not "profits and gains of business".

ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd.

343 ITR 329 · 2012 · High Court

438

citing judgments

For exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 263, the Commissioner must first find that the Assessing Officer's order is erroneous and unsustainable in law, as this is a condition precedent. An order is not erroneous merely because two views are possible, or if the Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's permissible view, or to simply remit the matter for further enquiries.

Judgments citing Section 56(2)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), New Delhi, C.R. Building vs. Asr Market Ventures Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3161/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

reads as under:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that section 56(2)(viib) of the Act is not applicable to the assessee's case in view of para no. 4 of the Notification ... Notification GSR 127(B) dated 19.02.2019 as the assessment order making an addition of Rs. 1,84,86,525/- under section 56(2)(viib) was passed on 28.12.2018, whereas the date of issue of Notification is 19.02,2019, Hence, para no. 4 of the Notification based on which

Mohammad Ibrahim, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-32(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1408/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1408/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mohammad Ibrahim……..……..…..……............…...……………....Appellant 6 Jhautala Road, Park Circus, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan:Aanpi9964N] Vs. Ito, Ward-32(3), Kolkata…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Smt. Swatee Baid, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 21, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 30, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.10.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Action Of The A.O Of Making The Addition Of Rs. 47,55,787/- By Wrongly Invoking The Provisions Of Sec 56(2)(Vii)(B)(Ii). 2 For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld Cit(A) Ought To Have Considered The Fact That The Assessee Is A Promoter & Real Estate Developer & The Asset Purchased Was To Be Used For Business & Was Not A Capital Asset As Such Provisions Of Sec 56(2\(Vii) (B)(Ii) Were Not Applicable.

Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

assessee was calculated at Rs.47,55,790/- and the said amount was added to the income of the assessee invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. 4. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition so made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Before ... Swatee Baid, the ld. Counsel for the assessee, has submitted that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act were not attracted in the case of the assessee. She has submitted that the assessee is in the business of real estate developer and the property

Pushpendra Bansal, Andheri West vs. ACIT-CC-3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3236/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vinit Mangal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Kumar, J. CIT

Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

proceed with the case in hand. 3. The Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order made the addition of Rs.8,00,000/- taxable under section 56(2)(vii) of the Act allegedly received as unsecured loan in the preceding years. The assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition before

Jalpa Savankumar Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 348/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 249(4)

implication u/s.56(2)vii) of the Act, as the husband and wife are well within the “relatives” as defined in the explanation to section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. However, without considering the any of this submission/document filed by the assessee and without furnishing opportunity to the assessee, Ld.CIT

Bhumika Mahesh Parwani, Ahmedabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 629/AHD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2020-21 Bhumika Mahesh Parwani, Income Tax Officer Sadhu Vaswani Mansion, Vs Ward 1(3)(1), Mirghawad, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380002 Gujarat Pan: Aljpp2059A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13/05/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac) [Hereinafter Referred As “Cit(A)”], Dated 01.08.2023, For The Assessment Year 2020-21, Wherein The Cit(A) Confirmed The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred As “Ao”) As Per The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As "The Act".

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr.DR

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(x)

land made by the aunt of the appellant's husband to appellant under family settlement arrangement cannot be subjected to provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act 3. The Ld. NFAC-CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the action of Assessing Officer making addition ... under section 56(2)(x) of the Act without disputing rebutting the contention of the appellant that gift received was under family settlement/arrangement and without appreciating the explanations and submissions made before the Assessing Officer as well as in the course of appellate proceedings. The brief facts of the case

The ACIT Central-1, Bhopal vs. Smt Meenakshi Saraiya, Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the revenue and CO are dismissed

ITA 231/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit (Central)- Smt. Meenakshi Saraiya Bhopal E-13/111, Arera Colony Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan: Anrps3407K Revenue By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Assessee By Shri Ila Parmar, Cit- Dr

Section 132Section 132(4)

source of income and the same was found to be justified. She has also offered income for taxation as per the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. Therefore, the statement given by the appellant that she received the said plot from the second party

Shekhar Anandrao Bagal, Mumbai vs. Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 365/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath Pasale, D.R

Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

vide assessment order dated 28.05.2023 under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act made the addition of Rs.4,37,500/- under section 56(2)(vii) of the Act which was challenged by the assessee before the Ld. Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine

Samadhan Krushna Katekar, Raigad vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Raigad

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 426/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshaliनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Samadhan Krushna Katekar Vs. National 214, Narmada Krishna Niwas Faceless Dhutum, Jasai Uran – 400702 Assessment Maharashtra Centre Pan : Azrpk4713E Appellant Respondent

Section 250Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 96

well as latter issue of addition of Rs.14,84,463/-; respectively. He further quoted the statutory amendments in 3 Samadhan Krushna Katekar section 56(2)(viii) r.w.s. 57(iv) r.w.s. 145B(i) inserted by the Finance Act, 2009 w.e.f. 01.04.2010 to support the impugned former addition. 5. We have given ... interest income received under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as taxable under the head income from “Other” sources under section 56(2)(viii) of the Act. The assessee‟s case before us is that such an interest income is part of the land acquisition compensation itself

M/S Active Securities Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 2335/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Puneet Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 24

business or profession'; would be taxed as income from other sources' 10.6 In that view of the matter, as per the provisions of section 56(2)(iii) of the Act, rental income earned from letting out of a building equipped with various amenities/facilities would either be taxable as 'business income ... Section 56 specifically states that the incomes shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head 'Income from other sources'.Clause (ii) of Section 56(2) provides that income from machinery, plant or furniture belonging to the assessee and let on hire, if the income is not chargeable to income

Kuna Impex Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 1053/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

order stating that the premium received on the issuance of shares by the Appellant is a capital receipt. 1.2 The provisions of section 56(2)(viib), which pertains to the taxation of excessive share premium, was introduced starting from the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2013-14. Consequently, it is our position

Kulbirsingh Kirpalsingh Maker, Vashi vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 14 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 287/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Us Reads As Under:-

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

contention of the assessee that the stamp value as prevailing at the time of the agreement be considered for the purpose of section 56(2)(vii) is not acceptable. The rights and ownership have only been transferred at the time of registration and hence stamp duty value prevailing at that ... application form, but in fact, it is an agreed value as per the agreement. Once that is so, then the proviso to Section 56(2)(viib) squarely applicable which reads as under:- (vii) where an individual or a Hindu undivided family receives, in any previous year, from any person

Akaansha Credit & Leasing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 2(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3404/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshakaansha Credit & Vs. Ito, Leasing Pvt. Ltd, Ward-2(1), 7/30, West Patel Nagar, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaaca7625E

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)

facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.41,79,890/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) invoking the provision of Section 56(2) (vii) of the Act. (ii) That the addition has been confirmed, rejecting the explanation and evidence filed by the assessee

Alliance Propmart Private Limited, Greater Noida vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3298/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

rate of above property was less than the Circle rate, the actual price was lower than the Value as per Stamp Duty. 5. Section 56(2)(vii) (b) of I.T. Act has been brought into effect with effect from 01 April 2014 i.e. Assessment Year 2014-15 pertaining to fiscal ... company has bought the abovementioned shop on 11.05.2011 which pertains to fiscal year 2011-12. Further, as per Para (d) of Explanation to Section 56(2)(vii) of the I.T. Act, Property means 'The Capital Asset of the Assessee while in the case of company, the shop purchased was lying

DCIT, Circle- 3(1), New Delhi vs. Apollo Fiege Integrated Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7834/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2015-16 Assessment Year 2016-17 Acit, Vs Apollo Fiege Integrated Circle-3(1), Logistics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Plot No.20, Sector-44, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 002. Pan: Aalca0748D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Shri R.K. Kapoor & Shri Harish Dhamija, Ca’S Revenue By : Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 31.07.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, New Delhi, (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.722/16-17 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep DinodiaFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 56(2)(viib)Section 68

shares to M/s Fiege International Beteiligungs Gmbh which owns 40% of the shareholding, the ld.CIT(A) has taken into consideration the fact that section 56(2)(viib) r.w.r. 11UA is not applicable to the shares issued to foreign companies on premium and the ld. DR could not dispute this fact

ACIT, Circle- 3(1), New Delhi vs. Apollo Fiege Integrated Logistics (P) Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6151/DEL/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep DinodiaFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 56(2)(viib)Section 68

Jyoti Goyal, Bhopal vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhopal

Appeal is partly allowed as mentioned above

ITA 380/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2012-13 Jyoti Goyal, Dcit, 18, Shyamla Hills, 1(1), बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abbpg3493P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2024

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

assessee the Ld. CIT(A), Delhi, was not justified in confirming disallowance of addition of Rs. 90,75,000/- invoking provision of section 56(2)(vii) and or 28(iv) of the Act. (3) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the assessee ... without consideration and therefore the transaction was taxable u/s 56(2)(vii)(b). When the AO show-caused, the assessee submitted that the section 56(2)(vii)(b) was not applicable because of two-fold reasons, (i) a sum of Rs. 3,75,000/- was paid by cheque

Aila Infrastructure Private Limited, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 371/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Aila Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 8F/95, Sonawala Building, Sleater Road, Tardeo, Mumbai - 400 007. Pan: Aakca 5414B ...... Appellant Vs. Ito Ward 12(1)-1, Room No. 226/262, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri M.M. Golwala & Ms. Aruna Aiyar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld.DR

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 69Section 69B

item (B) shall have effect as if for the words "ten per cent", the words "twenty per cent" had been substituted;] 4. In section 56(2) of the Act relevant clauses are (viia), (viib) and (x). Clause (viia) and (viib) are applicable for share transactions without/insufficient consideration, whereas clause ... taxmann.com 112 (Mumbai - Trib.) Benudhar Gokul Anand Biswal v. NEAC “The assessee has purchased the flat vide agreement dated 13-7-2009 and section 56(2)(x) was not in the statute book, and also it is a well-settled principle of law that a charging section cannot be pressed

Arafaath Exports Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Meerut

ITA 4076/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Arafaath Exports Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito, C/O Vinod Kumar Goel, Ward-1(1), 282, Boundry Road, Meerut. Civil Lines, Meerut. Pan: Aaica3838R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinod Kumar Goel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .05.2024

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

book value of equity shares of the assessee was calculated at Rs.8 per share as on 31.03.2012 and, thus, AO invoked section 56(2)(viib), inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013. The assessee claimed that provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act is not applicable ... investment by existing share holder or director an addition u/s 56(2)(viib), is not justified. The objective behind the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act is to prevent unlawful gain by issuing company in the garb of capital receipts. However, in the transaction between holding

Apl Logistics Vascor Automotive Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle 3(1), Delhi

ITA 2070/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Apl Logistics Vascor Automotive Vs Ao, Private Limited, Cpc, 4Th Floor, Sewa Tower, Plot No.19, Bengaluru. Anath Road, Udyog Vihar Iv, Sector-18, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 015. Pan: Aakca3524C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.07.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.Nfac/2018-19/10026768 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 08.10.2020 Passed U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Cpc Bengaluru (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Ringasia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 40Section 56(2)Section 69

premium to the tune of INR 9,31,50,000 which was in excess of valuation under Rule 11UA and was subject to section 56(2) (viib). 2.1 Against such doubts raised by the AO, the assessee submitted a point- wise reply as under:- i) With respect to non-deduction ... However, such query was never raised by the AO in the first place. iv) That the assessee was not subject to provisions of section 56(2) (viib) as the receipt was from a non-resident and such transactions were beyond the scope of section 56(2) (viib) which covered only

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dism

ITA 2719/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Ajay Singh

Section 143(3)Section 68

have undoubtedly on capital account. Share premium have undoubtedly on capital account. Share premium have been made taxable by a legal fiction under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act taxable by a legal fiction under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act taxable by a legal fiction under Section