“Section 56(2)(viib)”

Section References (mined)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)483 judgments

TECHPARK HOTELS PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ADDI. CIT SPECIAL RANGE-9, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 9450/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumartechpark Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Addl. Cit, Ground Floor, Central Wing, Special Range-9, Thapar House 124, Janpath, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aabce5833H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Shri Tavish Verma, Adv. Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra Sr. Dr Department By Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against Order Dated 11.09.2019 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2017 Of The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Declaring Loss Of Rs.23,06,28,106/- On 30.11.2015. Notice U/S 143(2) Dated 22.09.2016 Was Issued. Notices U/S 142(1) Were Issued. Sh. Nikhil Agarwal & Shri Nirmal Malpani, Ca Appeared & Filed Details. On Completion Of Proceedings, Ld. Ao Vide Order Dated Techpark Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234DSection 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

affirming the addition of Rs.9,06,45,649, on account of alleged excessive premium received on issuance of shares in terms of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding that the premium charged by the appellant ... discounted cash flow by having the same independently determined by a valuer appointed for the aforesaid purpose. 4.3 FMV for the purpose of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, shall be the value as on valuation date, which has been defined in Rule 11U(j) of the Rules

SHALBY LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1005/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-D.R

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

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member

JCIT, (OSD), CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. PLATINUM WORLD HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the appellant is allowed

ITA 130/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.130/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd), Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 68

share premium charged are commercial decisions of the management and cannot be questioned by the Revenue unless the specific anti-abuse provisions of section 56(2)(viib) apply, which is not the case here. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Standard Vacuum Oil Co. (59 ITR 685) affirmed that share premium

ASIRVAD MICRO FINANCE LIMITED,ANNA SALAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(1), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1139/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1139/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. P.R. Prasanna Varma, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N., CIT

Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

allegation that the assessee has any undisclosed receipts towards share premium. The Ld. AR further submitted that the intention behind introduction of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act is to curtail the unaccounted money received as share premium and in assessee's case the A.O has made the addition ... tune of Rs. 27,53,76,209/-. The contention of the assessee is that the primary criteria for invoking section 56(2)(viib) of the Act i.e, unaccounted money being infused is not established by the A.O. The assessee further contends that the A.O is not correct in Asirvad Micro

ASCENTECH ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1686/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad06 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

For Appellant: MS Sree Lekha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Mathivanan S A, Sr. AR

Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

method adopted by the assessee\ni.e. DCF method for determining fair market value was one of the\nmethods prescribed under the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) read with\nincome tax rule 11UA of Income Tax Rule. The AO cannot interfere in\nthe method selected for the valuation ... Valuation Report drawn by a merchant\nbanker as per the DCF method. However, and as is manifest from a\nconjoint reading of Section 56(2)(viib) read along with Rule 11UA(2),\nthe option and the choice stands vested solely in the hands of the assessee.\n17.\nWhile it would

NAVKAR WOLLENS PRIVATE LIMITED,BIKANER vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3, BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 670/JODH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blenavkar Woollens Private Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of Rani Bazar, Bikaner, H.O. Income Tax, Circle – 3 Bikaner, Bikaner Bikaner - 334001 Pan No. Aabcn 9287 G Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate & Smt. Raksha Birla, Ca (Physical) Revenue By Smt. Runi Pal, Cit-Dr & Shri Lalit Kumar Bishnoi, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As Nfac/Cit(A)] Dated 30.07.2025 With Respect To Assessment Year 2014-15 Challenging Therein Sustaining The Addition Of Rs. 2,34,04,480/- On Account Of Difference Between The Fair Market Value & The Issue Price Of The Equity Shares By Questioning The Method Of Valuation.

Section 144Section 147Section 56(2)(viib)

further observed that appellant had advanced arguments that company incurred business losses on account of depreciation on solar plant is irrelevant. Section 56(2)(viib) specifically deals with the premium received over FMV on the issuance of shares and treats such excess as taxable income regardless of the company

ORAGADAM CITY DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-5(1), CHENNAI

In the result, Addition u/s

ITA 2173/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: MR. R. Sivaraman, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 56(2)(viib)

Oragadam City Developers Pvt Ltd(Vs.) ITO CW5(1) :: 3 :: at a premium took place in FY 2013-14. The assessee submitted that Section 56(2)(viib) was inapplicable as the consideration had been received in earlier years. The assessee further relied upon a valuation report adopting the Discounted Cash ... unreliable. The fair market value (FMV) of the shares was determined at Rs.10/- per share, being the face value. The AO held that Section 56(2)(viib) applies to any consideration received for issue of shares to a resident in excess of the FMV, irrespective of whether the underlying funds

INDUTCH COMPOSITES TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA

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

ITA 2004/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr.DR

Section 250Section 56(2)

justice. 3. On the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.60,95,145/- under section 56(2) (viib) by arbitrarily rejecting the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method of share valuation adopted by the appellant as per Rule 11UA, and in accepting ... share, being the value of shares issued in excess of its Fair Market Value, was accordingly, treated as ‘income from other sources’ under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. Accordingly, an addition of Rs.60,95,145/- (406343 shares @ Rs.15 per share) was made to the income of the assessee

SECUREINTELI TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1,, COIMBATORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3005/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3005/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Mr.N.V.Narayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

KARADI PATH EDUCATION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. COMMISSIONER, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1848/CHNY/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

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

Rs.1,25,00,000/- 29.01.2018 without explicit option to convert\nor any predetermined formula for conversion.\n7. Further, the Id.AR argued that the Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, interalia\nprovides as follows:\n\"(viib) where a company, not being a company in which the public are\nsubstantially interested ... nsuch shares, the aggregate consideration received for such shares as exceeds\nthe fair market value of the shares\"\n8. It is seen that section 56(2)(viib) of the Act postulates a situation where\nthe consideration for issue of shares is received in the year in which such shares\nare

M/S STANCE CONSUMER ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-32, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 in ITA No

ITA 2792/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.2791 & 2792/Del/2025 (Assessment Yearss 2016-17 & 2017-18)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Stance Consumer Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT of the shares sold was worked out at Rs.38.21 per share and as per Explanation to section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, fair market value of the shares is defined which reads as under:- 56 (1)…………….. (2) (viib) …… (Explanation For the purposes

M/S STANCE CONSUMER ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-32, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 in ITA No

ITA 2791/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.2791 & 2792/Del/2025 (Assessment Yearss 2016-17 & 2017-18)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

HOLLIS VITRIFIED PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI, GUJARAT, INDIA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT, GUJARAT, INDIA

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

ITA 363/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 363/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Hollis Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No. 756/P1/P1/P1, Opp. Tax-1, Rajkot Antique Granito, Ghuntu,-Lakhdhirpur Road, Morbi (Gujarat)-363642 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacch5628Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS mainly on the reason that "large share premium received during the year (verify applicability of section 56(2)(viib) or any other relevant section). Therefore, it was incumbent upon the assessing officer to verify all the aspects of the share capital minutely

DIABETOMICS MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee\nare partly allowed

ITA 2149/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

For Appellant: \nCA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: \nMS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 56(2)(viib)

company cannot be regarded as a\nVenture Capital Undertaking so as to be eligible for exemption from\nthe application of the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) as per the first\nproviso thereunder on the ground that the appellant company\ncannot be considered to be "engaged in the business ... business since it has begun to set up its\nbusiness and it is eligible for exemption from the applicability of\nthe provisions of section 56(2)(viib), being a venture capital\nundertaking, in respect of consideration received for issue of CCPS\nfrom a Venture capital company/fund, as per the first

DIABETOMICS MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 2148/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

For Appellant: \nCA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: \nMS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 56(2)(viib)

DIABETOMICS MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 2147/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

For Appellant: CA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 56(2)(viib)

BRAJBHUMI NIRMAAN PRIVATE LIMITED,SALT LAKE vs. ITO, WARD 2(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2605/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2026AY 2015-2016

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

nAct.\nBefore examining the veracity of the valuation report, it is relevant\nto first take note of the provisions contained in Section 56(2)(viib) and\nthe relevant Rule 11UA which reads as under:\nSection 56(2)(viib):\n\"56 (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality ... brought to tax by\nway of 'Income from Other Sources' u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act. It is\nobserved that, Section 56(2)(viib) is an anti-abuse provision brought\nin by the Finance Act, 2012 to deter the generation of unaccounted\nmonies and tax the excessive premium received

DEVANAND AMARNATH PARKAR,JOGESHWARI EAST, MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(4)(1), KAUTILYA BHAWAN, BKC, BANDRA EAST

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6462/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 56(2)(viib)

making an addition of Rs.5,72,886/- on account of the\ndifference between the stamp duty valuation and the actual purchase\nconsideration under section 56(2)(viib) of the Income-tax Act, without properly\nappreciating and considering the independent valuation report submitted by the\nappellant. The addition so made

K. G. FINVEST PRIVATE LIMITED,EAST DELHI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 29, DELHI, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 4330/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2015-16] K.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd. Vs Central Circle-29, F-24 F/Floor, I.Sc Pankaj Delhi Central Market, Mandawali Fazalpur, Nr Natraj Vihar Society, I.P. Extn., New Delhi- 110092. Pan-Aaack4032H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sudesh Garg, Adv. & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Respondent By Shri Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29 .01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.06.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-30, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-5/10256/2017-18 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Company Has Filed Its Return Of Income On 28.09.2015, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 5,09,130/-. The Case Was Selected Under Limited Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Followed By Statutory Notices Issued U/S 142(1) Were Issued From Time To Time. In Response, Assessee Filed Submissions & Relevant Details Alongwith Evidences. The Ao Observed That The Assessee Issued 8,40,000 Equity Shares Of Inr 10/- Each At A Premium Of Inr 490/- Each & The Valuation Of Shares Was Done By Following Dcf Method. However, The Ao Rejected The Method Of Valuation Of Share Adopted By The Assessee & Re-Computed The Value Per Share At Inr 50.35 Per Share As Per Nav Method & Made Addition Of Differential Amount Of Inr 37,77,06,000/- U/S 56(2)(Viib) Of The Act.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

differential amount of INR 449.65 per share is the income of the assessee. Ld.AR submits that AO has invoked the provision of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act which is reproduced as under:- 56. (1) “Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from the total income ... derived by the assessee should be accepted as the market value of shares for issue of shares in terms of the Explanation to section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 8. Ld.AR further submits that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs Cinestaan Entertainment

DCIT, CC-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. JUPITER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1678/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata ………….……………………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Jupiter International Limited..……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Unnayanam, 20A, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue, Kol-19.. [Pan: Aaacj6956B] Appearances By: Shri P. N Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Nandini Sureka, Advocate, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 197 Days & The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Going Over The Said Petition, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind The Delay & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

making following disallowances or additions:- 1. Additions under section 14A of the Act amounting to Rs. 4,78,76,015. 2. Additions under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act amounting to Rs. 3,29,48,640. 3. Additions on account of Provision for Interest on Unsecured Loan amounting ... which it has been held that revaluation reserve cannot be excluded while computing FMV of shares for the purpose of section 56(2) (viib) of the Act. The ld. also submits that when an asset is sold, any losses are first deducted from the Revaluation Reserve and if there

Showing 1–20 of 483 · Page 1 of 25

...