“Section 56(2)(viib)”

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

The decision most relied on for Section 56(2)(viib) is Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India (368 ITR 1), cited in 172 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 56(2)(viib)

Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India

368 ITR 1 · 2014 · High Court

172

citing judgments

The issue of shares and share premium is a capital account transaction, not an income-generating event, therefore Chapter X (Transfer Pricing) provisions are not attracted to deem notional or hypothetical income from such transactions.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi

16 SCC 680 · 2017 · Reported

152

citing judgments

The Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi laid down the principles for determining 'future prospects' to be added to the income of a deceased person for calculating compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. It also clarified principles of judicial discipline, including the binding nature of coordinate bench decisions and how to resolve conflicting Supreme Court judgments.

SA Builders, 288 ITR 1 (SC) and CIT v. Panipat Woollen and General Mills Company Ltd.

103 ITR 66 · 1976 · Supreme Court

105

citing judgments

The Income Tax Department cannot sit in the armchair of a businessman or question their commercial wisdom and business decisions. Expenses incurred for business expediency, determined from the businessman's point of view, are allowable business expenses.

PCIT v. Chain House International (P) Ltd.

98 Taxmann.com 47 · 2018 · High Court

104

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot arbitrarily reject a share valuation report prepared by an expert using recognized methods like NAV or DCF for the purpose of Section 56(2)(viib) without providing valid reasons to demonstrate its perversity or unreasonableness.

CIT v. Tin Box Company

260 ITR 637 · 2003 · High Court

citing judgments

When an assessee possesses sufficient interest-free funds, it is presumed that any interest-free advances or investments made are from these funds, preventing disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii). This principle applies if own capital and interest-free loans exceed the interest-free advances given.

Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd. v. PCIT

164 DTR 257 · 2018 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessee has the option to choose either the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method or the Net Asset Value (NAV) method for share valuation under Section 56(2)(viib) read with Rule 11UA. The Assessing Officer cannot substitute the chosen method or value without identifying a specific error in the assessee's valuation.

CIT v. Green Infra Ltd.

78 Taxmann.com 340 · 2017 · High Court

citing judgments

The valuation of shares is not relevant for determining the genuineness of a transaction under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Interest income earned on the deposit of surplus funds is taxable as business income.

PCIT v. Cinestaan Entertainment Pvt Ltd.

433 ITR 82 · 2021 · High Court

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot reject the share valuation method adopted by an assessee under Section 56(2)(viib) if it adheres to prescribed methodologies and commercial prudence. The valuation cannot be challenged based on future performance or by substituting another method.

Judgments citing Section 56(2)(viib)

M/S. Raghvendra Construction Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 11(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2478/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Raghvendra Income Tax Officer- Construction Company 11(1)(1) Private Limited Room No. 201, 522, 5Th Floor, 2Nd Floor, Vs. The Summit Business Bay, Aayakar Bhawan, Andheri Kurla Road, Maharishi Karve Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400020. Mumbai- 400069. Pan: Aaccr7371Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For : Assessee By : Shri M. Subramanian, A.R. : Shri R. R. Makwana- Sr. D.R. Revenue By : 24 . 07 . 2024 Date Of Hearing : 01 . 08 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian, A.RFor Respondent: 24 . 07 . 2024

Section 250Section 43CSection 56(2)(viib)

National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in law, facts and circumstances of the case by confirming the invoking of provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act in respect of issue of shares in the FY 2011-12 i.e. prior to the enactment of the said provisions. 2

Pathfinder Publishing Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle -16(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 39/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR

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

order which is reproduced as under : “ 2.4 The reply of the assessee is examined with reference to the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. In the instant case, the assessee has opted for the DCF method and produced the certificate of a CA i.e. GN & Associateswherein ... circumstances of the case. Thus, since the assessee has valued the shares at much higher value than the FMV, the provision of Section 56(2)(viib) read with Rule 11UA(2)(a) is invoked in this case and the valuation Report furnished by the assessee is hereby rejected. Any increase

Multiventure Estates Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 510/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

DCIT-CC-5(3), Mumabi, Mumbai vs. Jwl Cold Store Private Limited, Panvel, Maharashtra

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3098/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Satish Mody, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. D/R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

Bench of ITAT. 8. Ld. CIT(A) after considering all the submissions and facts of the case and analyzing the applicable provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) r.w.r 11UA(2), gave a detailed finding with his observation on conclusion drawn by ld. AO which are extracted below:- “5.3.5. From ... appellant. 5.3.13. It was held in Cinestaan Entertainment (P) Ltd vs ITO, [2019] 177 ITD 809 (Delhi - Trib.)by Hon’ble ITAT: “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

M/S Raghvendra Construction Company Private Ltd., Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 11(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 & 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2477/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: None

Section 56(2)(viib)

were selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The AO completed the assessment by making addition under section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) amounting ... during the course of assessment rejected the method of valuation adopted by the assessee towards valuation of share and accordingly made additions under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act for both AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16. The CIT(A) on further appeal issued various notices from

M/S Raghvendra Construction Company Private Ltd., Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 11(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 & 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2476/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: None

Section 56(2)(viib)

Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality Pvt Ltd, Mumbai, India vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax PCIT, Mumbai-5, Ayakar Bhavan Mumbai

ITA 1926/MUM/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh, CIT, D/R

Section 143(3)Section 263

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ, मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON

M/S. Nexcare Agency Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 7(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 35/KOL/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jul 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

erred in doubting the value of share premium amount determined by the assessee company for issue of shares when neither the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) came into force from the assessment year under consideration nor the source of source as required under the amended provisions of section

The JCIT (OSD), Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Magnet Buildtech P. Ltd, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 489/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.489/Ahd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Jcit (Osd) M/S. Magnet Buildtech Pvt.Ltd. Circle-2(1)(1) बनाम/ 906-907, Indraprasth Corporate Ahmedabad Opp. Venus Atlantis V/S. Anand Nagar Road Ahmedabad – 380 015 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaicm 4158 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi & Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, Ars Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 09/07/2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” In Short] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 11/12/2018 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Jcit (Osd) Vs. M/S.Magnet Buildtech Pvt.Ltd. Asst. Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi &For Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

assessee was asked to provide details and genuineness of share capital and share premium along with the certificate of Valuer in accordance with section 56(2)(viib) read with Rule 11UA. Based on the Audited balance-sheet of the assessee-company as on 31st March-2015, the AO observed that ... assessee to explain why the amount of Rs.79,98,71,290/- should not be added to the income as per provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. In reply to the show-cause notice, the assessee submitted the valuation certificate, wherein the Valuer considered Discounted Cash Flow Method

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

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

ITA 310/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Years : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri KR Pradeep & Ms. Girija G.P, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Vilas Shinde, CIT (DR)

Section 56(2)(viib)

11UA(2) of the Income Rule provides two method of the valuation of fair market value of unquoted share for the purpose of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. the relevant provision of rule 11UA(2) of Income Tax Rule reads as under: "(2) Notwithstanding anything contained ... method adopted by the assessee i.e. DCF method for determining fair market value was one of the methods prescribed under the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) read with income tax rule 11UA of Income Tax Rule. The AO cannot interfere in the method selected for the valuation

Tripoto Travel Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-25(2), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6250/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Brij Mohan Barwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

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

examined the issue of equity and preferential shares by the assessee to the residents of India for the purpose of application of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. The assessee has justified the share application money received from M/s Pandra Trust Scheme and M/s Advantage Incubators on the basis ... under the head ‘Other sources’ on the ground that the valuation report for valuation of unquoted shares for the purpose of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act by an independent Chartered Accountant is not accurate and is not acceptable for the reasons that firstly, the provision used for determination

Adm Agro Industries Kota & Akola Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 51/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roym/S. Adm Agro Industries Kota & Vs. Dcit, Circle 1 (1), Akola Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Third Floor, Vatika Professional Point, Golf Course Extension Road, Sector – 66, Gurgaon – 122 018 (Haryana). (Pan : Aabcs9646L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate Shri Utkarsh Kr. Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Amisha Gupt, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Order : 10.07.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-I, New Delhi Dated 05.11.2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That, In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer ('Ao') Dated 30.12.2017 U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act,1961 ('The Act'), As Upheld By Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ('Cit(A)') Dated 05.11.2019 & Also The Additions

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR

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

they need to issue shares to their shareholders. 10. That the AO/CIT(A) have both failed to appreciate that the true objective of Section 56(2)(viib) is to prevent conversion! circulation of unaccounted money, and hence in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the transaction ... Appellant is not covered by Section 56(2)( viib) of the Act. 11. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in rejecting application for admission of additional evidence u/ Rule 46A moved by the Appellant, which contained

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Airindia Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai vs. Fateh Granite Limited, Andheri, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3484/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

allegation of the Ld. Assessing Officer in respect of assessee accepting share premium in excess of fair value, we note that provision of section 56(2)(viib) has been inserted with effect from 01.04.2013 and applies from assessment year 2013 – 14 onwards and cannot be applied retrospectively to bring ... decide the share premium and it is at the wisdom of the shareholders to subscribe to the share premium and further that section 56(2)(viib) inserted with effect from 01.04.2013 cannot be applied retrospectively. 19. Considering the facts and circumstances narrated and analysed above, all the details and documents

Capitalg International Llc (Formerly Known As Gc Aisa L.L.C.), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1632/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2024AY 2017-2018

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘K’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Prl Developers Private Limited, Mumbai City vs. Circle 8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground V of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1031/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 3Section 56(2)(viib)

disallowance of Rs.94,98,2687- be allowed as a deduction as claimed by the Appellant. GROUND NO. V: ADDITION OF SHARE PREMIUM UNDER SECTION 56(2)(viib) OF THE ACT: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding ... action of the AO in considering premium on shares issued to Non-Residents while computing disallowance which is squarely outside the ambit of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 3. Therefore, the Appellant prays that the Ld. CIT(A) be directed to delete the addition amounting to Rs.1

A.H.Multisoft P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 2400/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI G.S PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Sapra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

case where shares at unjustified premium have been issued to outside non-related parties so as to make addition section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. the valuation of shares as per DCF Method has backed by valuation report. Besides, the shares have allotted to the holding-company i.e., existing

Enn Vee Holdings Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle 31, New Delhi

In the result, the addition made u/s 68 and u/s 56(2)(viib) in the case of M/s Realtime Marketing Pvt

ITA 1195/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

merely on doubts ignored the documents, but could not bring any material contrary during the appellate proceedings. 12. Further, on a reading of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, it becomes clear that fair market value of share as on date of sale has to be determined by applying ... fair market value of the shares determined through an accountant. Thus, the assessee has acted as per the mandate of section 56(2)(viib) read with Rule 11UA. Whereas the Assessing Officer has substituted fair market value determined by the assessee through his own valuation. 13. While dealing with

DCIT, CC-31, New Delhi vs. Realtime Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the addition made u/s 68 and u/s 56(2)(viib) in the case of M/s Realtime Marketing Pvt

ITA 1839/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

Keep Learning Resources Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-12(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1692/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Keep Learning Income Tax Officer, Resources Private Ward 12(1)(4) Limited Aayakar Bhawan, D –Wing, Maharishi Karve Road, Chanakya Chs, Vs. Mumbai- 400020. Link Road, Mahavir Nagar, Kandivali (West), Mumbai- 400067. Pan: Aadcc6594R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Kapil Sanghvi, C.A. Revenue By : Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. Cit), S.R. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 05 . 06 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25 . 06 . 2024 O R D E R Per : Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit Appeal Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act [The ‘Act’ In Short] Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1050750385(1) Dated 14/03/2023 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Following Grounds Of Appeal Have Been Raised:

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Sanghvi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. CIT), S.R. D.R

Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH

Medsonway Soltutions Private Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circlr-7, Pune

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

ITA 9/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.09/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Medsonway Solutions Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle-7, Building B, Office No.2, Pune Prakash Niwas, H.No.124, Shukrawar Peth, Pune 411 002 Maharashtra Pan : Aajcm3805F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep P. Sathe

Section 56(2)(viib)Section 69C

made addition of Rs.3,49,62,210/- in respect of share premium under the head ‘Income from other Sources’ invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act”) with which we are not concerned. The AO also made addition