“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)

Privilege Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 14, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 3317/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax– M/S Privilege Industries Ltd. 14 3Rd Floor, Dheeraj Arma, Anant Room No. 415, Vs. Kanekar Marg, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs6532N

For Appellant: Mr. Nimesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay V. Deshmukh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(viib)

failed to determine the correct fair market value of shares issued and whether any sum is assessable to tax in terms of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. Privilege Industrial Ltd; A.Y. 14–15 02. The fact says that assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing ... been placed on record and ld AO has not examined to ensure whether share valuation is in accordance with the provision of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act or not. Therefore, a notice under Section 263 of the Act was issued on 12 March 2018. 04. Assessee submitted

Ub Ostan (India) P. Ltd, Pune vs. ITO 1(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 7039/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ub Ostan (India) Private Limited, Income-Tax Officer-1(3)-4, Sahyadri Sadan, Tilak Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Pune-411-030. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aabcu 2815 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. S.N. Kabra, DR

Section 56Section 68

assessee as unexp received by the assessee as unexplained cash credit and not made lained cash credit and not made the addition under section 56(2)(vii) of the under section 56(2)(vii) of the Act determining any determining any excess premium charged in case of closely held company

Leila Advani, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2270/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Tapas MishraFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 45(5)(b)Section 48Section 48(1)Section 54F

quantified and a sum of Rs. 12.77 crores was paid to the assessee in 2019, and the same was treated as interest under section 56(2)(viii) and offered to tax, after claiming deduction under section 57(iv), in AY 2020-21 (vii) The amount of interest shown ... stated above, the amounts shown as "interest' in the said letter is not interest of the nature contemplated under section 145A (b) or section 56(2) (viii) of the Income-tax Act. Kind attention is also invited to the submissions already made at page 4-7 of the paper-book

DCIT - 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Unique Land Realty Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3531/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Section 133(6)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

deleting the addition of Rs. 8.71 crores made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Act and also alternatively under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 2. Facts relating to the issue are stated in brief. The assessee is engaged in real estate business. During the year ... crore as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 3. The Assessing Officer, alternatively, assessed the above said amount under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act on the following reasoning:- (a) The Chartered Accountant, who issued valuation report, has followed “Discounted free cash flow method

M/S Majju Image & Brand Consultants Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2015/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Majju Image & Brand Consultants Pvt. Ltd., The Pr. No. G1, Accolade Commissioner Of Apartments, Income Tax, Millers Road, 2Nd Cross, Bangalore – 4, Benson Town, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 046. Pan: Aaicm6586E Appellant Respondent : Shri B.S. Balachandran, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order U/S. 263 Dated 25/01/2018 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit, Bangalore – 4 For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Revisionary Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Pcit) U/S.263 Dated; 25-01-2018 Is Opposed To The Facts Of The Case & The Law & Therefore, It Is Liable To Be Set-Aside.

For Respondent: Shri B.S. Balachandran

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

note that the Ld.AO while passing the order giving to order u/s. 263 rejected the DCF method and applied the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) for making disallowance of the difference being the excess fair market value by computing as under: Page 14 of 15 Consideration received for issue ... disallowance by the Ld.AO has not been made u/s. 68 of the Act but the disallowance is made by applying provisions of section 56(2)(viib) which cannot be applicable to the present facts of the case. In our view, based on such peculiar facts, 263 proceedings cannot be upheld

ACIT Cent. Cir 5(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Sunil B.Dalal, Mumbai

In the result, Appeal of The ld AO is dismissed

ITA 2239/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shri Sunil B Dalal Central Circle 5(4) D/52, Tarabaug Estate, Room No.1927, 19Th Floor, Charni Road, Vs. Air India Bldg, Mumbai-400 004 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaepd3658F Assessee By : Shri Sashi Tulsiyan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.07.22 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2022

For Appellant: Shri Sashi Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

Section 28(iv) of the Act amounting to Rs. 42,45,000/- by writing back unsecured loan from Singhi Associates. ii. Addition under Section 56(2) (x) of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,81,53,200/-. 05. Assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A), who passed appellate ... following decision of Honourable Supreme court in CIT V Mahindra & Mahindra Limited [ 404 ITR 1 (SC) . b. With respect to the addition under Section 56(2) (x) of the Act of Rs. 1,81,53,200/-. He upheld the addition of Rs. 30,32,300/- and deleted the addition

Vishwanath Ramchandra Panvelkar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Kalyan

ITA 7162/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Learned Cit(A) The Assessee Furnished Various Details. It Was Submitted That The Above Said Amount Of Rs. 1,77,32,218/- Represented Net Capital Introduced By Him. The Details Thereof Were Furnished As Under :

Section 2Section 56(2)Section 68

Enterprises is unexplained cash credit. He also held that this amount is also taxable as gift in the hands of the assessee under section 56(2) of the Act. The Learned CIT(A) also concurred with the view expressed by the Assessing Officer in the remand report. He also took

Dy CIT. Circle-1, Thane vs. M/S Travecom Global P. Ltd., Bhayander

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 59/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Circle 1 V. M/S. Travecom Global Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 22, B-Wing B/607, Krishnakunj 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park Salasar Brij Bhoomi Wagle Industrial Estate Bhayander (W)-401101 Thane (W)-400604 Pan: Aaect8729Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji Department By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi

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

above observations Assessing Officer rejected valuation report and the share premium received at ₹.1,75,03,410/- is added as per provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), before the Ld.CIT(A) assessee made detailed submissions before ... show cause notice are as under 1. This case was selected for scrutiny under the category "Limited Scrutiny" to verify applicability of Section 56(2) (viib) of the I. T. Act, 1961 with regard to large share premium received during the year under consideration. 2. The assessee had shown positive

Drums Food International P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -6, Mumbai

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

ITA 568/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmandrums Food Vs. Pcit – 6 International Pvt Ltd Room No. 501, 5Th Unit No. 912, 9Th Floor Floor, Aayakar Hubtown Solaris, N.S Bhavan, Mk Road, Phadke Marg, Andheri Mumbai – 400020. (E), Mumbai – 400 069. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccd7235M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Adv.Ar Respondent By : Mr.Surendra Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-6, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Adv.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Surendra Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

cannot be resorted to for substitution of one view for the other. The view adopted by the Ld AO on applicability of Section 56(2) (vib) in the facts of the present case is a possible view. In the facts of the present case Notice u/s 263 does not state ... fact in earlier year also, no addition of share premium was made in the hands of the Assessee. The provisions of Section 56(2) (viib) are anti- abuse provisions and same may be invoked only if there is evasion of taxes. Hence, revision tantamount to change of opinion which

DCIT, CC - 5(3), Mumbai vs. Alag Nirman Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6684/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69Section 69A

regards the agreement value Rs 2,51,99,460/- The appellant has submitted that section 56(2)(vii) came into effect from 1.10.2009 but was applicable to individuals and HUF only. The same became applicable to companies after addition of new clause (x) to section 56(2) w.e.f

ACIT Circle-3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Chemicon Engineering Consultant Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 833/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7907/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Chemicon Engineering बिधम/ Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Room No.607, Aayakar Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 833/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) बिधम/ Chemicon Engineering Room No.607, Aayakar Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2686H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & Revenue Respectively Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-08, Mumbai Dated 29.11.2019 For The A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Both The Parties Are As Follows: Assessee Grounds: - 1. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 (The “Act”) & A.Ys.2013-14 Chemicon Engineering That By The Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act So Far It Relates To In Confirming Of The Additions To The Extent Of A) Rs. 6,22,05,000/- Received From Certain Companies Out Of Total Rs. 13,13,50,000/- In Respect Of Shares Allotted Against Share Application Money;

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

appreciating the fact that the share premium amount received was over and above the Jair market value of the shares in terms of section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 11UA of the Income tax Rule 1962 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances

Chemicon Engineering Consultant Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 3 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7907/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Income Tax Officer-16(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Gama Entertainment Systems Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7175/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer-16(1)(2), M/S Gama Entertainment 436-A, Aayakar Bhavan, Systems Pvt. Ltd., M.K. Road, Vs. 103, A Wing, Sai Commercial Mumbai-400020. Centre, Gowandi Station Road, Deonar, Gowandi (East), Mumbai-400088. Pan No. Aadcg 3492 N Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Parth Navandar, Ar Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/06/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Parth Navandar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, DR

Section 68

more than the market value of the shares could be made in terms o of the shares could be made in terms of section 56(2) 56(2) of the Act and not u/s 68 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has passed a reasoned order

Radiant Life Care Mumbai P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 896/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 Radiant Life Care Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., Principle Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor Man Excellenza, S.V. Income Tax Mumbai-3, Road, Vile Parle (W), Vs. R. No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400056. Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aagcr 9198 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Gupta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 56(2)

assessment proceedings and the learned Assessing Officer has accepted the valuation & allowed the depreciation after making proper & specific enquiry with reference to Section 56(2) (viib) for valuation of shares and Section 32 for depreciation on intangible asset. The assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer after due application ... interest of the revenue and hence the order of revision is bad in law. 3. The Learned PCIT failed to appreciate that Section 56(2) (viib) is not attracted in the facts of the present case as Appellant has issued shares on premium on the basis of valuation report obtained

Radiant Life Care Mumbai P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 895/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Gupta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 56(2)

Learning Curve Edutech Solutions Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 832/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2015-16

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act in the instant case on the issue of examination of share premium in the context of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 11. Even on merits, we find that all the allegations levelled by learned PCIT for disbelieving valuation report ... duly met hereinabove. Accordingly, even on merits, there cannot be any addition on account of share premium either under section 68 or under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act as the issue of shares in the instant case has been done in accordance with Rule 11UA(2

Smt Hiral Dhaval Kothari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD 30(1) (4), Mumbai

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

ITA 223/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Hiral Dhaval Kothari, Ito, Ward-30(1)(4), B-403, Sanskriti Building, Kautilya Bhavan, Kedermal Road, Malad (East) Vs. Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 097. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aumpk 5669 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Prateek Jha & Mr. Prayag Jha, Ars Revenue By : Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Prateek Jha &For Respondent: Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, DR

Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

fact that the Ld ITO had made addition in a routine manner without following the procedure for the purpose of making addition under section 56(2) (vii)(b) of the IT Act. 4. Without prejudice to Ground Nos 1, 2 and 3, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring ... between the Stamp Duty Value and cost of purchase was less than 10% and therefore, such difference was to be ignored as per section 56(2) (x)(b)(B). 5. The Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that amendment brought in section 56(2) (x)b)(B) being

M/S. Te Connectivity Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 300/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.300/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Sheshadri & Ms. Amulya K., CAsFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

case of Cinestaan Entertainment (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO, reported in [2019] 106 taxmann.com 300 (Delhi Tribunal), has held as under: ‘“32. Section 56 (2) (viib) is a deeming provision and one cannot expand the meaning of scope of any word while interpreting such deeming provision. If the statute provides that ... view the entire facts of the case, the reports of the valuer, the comparison of the actual and projected revenues, provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) and keeping in view the order of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Cinestaan Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 177 ITD 809 wherein

Acron Hospitality P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -6, Mumbai

ITA 878/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

receipt by the Appellant in excess of the aforesaid fair market value should have been taxed in the hands of the Appellant under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. According to the PCIT, the Assessing Officer failed to examine these aspects in the assessment proceedings which resulted in passing

Shri De vs. Haran Shivnath Sharma, Mumbai

ITA 5535/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

properties, the ld. AO ought to have made reference to the ld. Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) in accordance with the proviso to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. We find that the ld. CIT(A) had held that 3 Shri Devsharan Shivnath Sharma assessee had not made