← All Phrases

“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
80
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
69
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
56
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
49
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)

Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Energy Solution Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

ITA 739/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountαντ Μεμβer

For Appellant: Dhanesh Bafna a/wFor Respondent: Anil Sant

DCIT, Circle 2(3)(1) 8.1 8.2 8.3 Enhancing the income of the Appellant by INR 1,07, 18.54,148 under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act without appreciating the facts of the case vis- à-vis the applicability of the section. Upholding the enhancement ... under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, although the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act cannot be invoked in the fact of the present case Rejecting the method of valuation adopted by the Appellant and adopted a different method for the purposes of determining the Fair

Tex- Kare Cleaners Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 8 (3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6924/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Tex-Kare Cleaners Pvt. Ltd. Ito 8(3)(1) 99/103, Kazi Sayeed Street, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Masjid Bunder, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadct1696D

For Appellant: Adv. Ritika Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 53Section 56

provision of Section 56 does not arise. The learned Assessing Officer examined the claim of the assessee 06. and considering the provisions of Section 56(2) (viib) of the Act, held that assessee has failed to bring on record any evidence that would satisfactorily explain the basis for the share ... premium of ₹900 for 12600 shares amounting to ₹1,13,40,000/- was added back to the total income of the assessee under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act by passing an order under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 28thMarch 2016. Assessee

M/S. Finwizard Technology Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 15/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Sri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

disallowance by observing that the share valuation certificate was not reliable and the ld. AO was correct in invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 2.7 The ld. CIT(A) has also deleted the protective addition made by the ld. AO being the difference between ... shares have been issued continues to be the share holders of the company even today. She thus, submitted that deeming provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act will not be applicable under such circumstances. 3.3 The ld. A.R. submitted that CBDT vide Notification dated 14.1.2020 issued

ADIT Infrapower & Multitrading Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 1(3), Gurgaon

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 903/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2014-15 Adit Infrapower & Multitrading Vs Ito, Pvt. Ltd., Ward-1(3), Da-08, 2Nd Floor, Vikas Marg, Gurgaon. Shakarpur, New Delhi. Pan: Aahca5582H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Aasish Mohanty, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Aasish Mohanty, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

interest of the Revenue, being satisfied. 7) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in invoking the section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act and rule 11UA 3 of the Income Tax rules as this section is not applicable on the debentures ... error in discrediting the DCF method adopted by the assessee company. Thus there is no error in invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act r.w.r. 11UA(1)(c)(b) of the IT Rules by the AO. The ground raised in the appeal have no substance

Holiday Triangle Travel Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

The appeal is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 238/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi26 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaholiday Triangle Travel Private Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.52, 3Rd Floor, Jaipur. Batra House, Sector 32, Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aacch7688E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Dhawan, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2024 Date Of Order : 26.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Dhawan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in conferring the addition of INR 5,289,920 made by Ld. AO under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in conferring the addition ... erred in conferring the addition of INR 5,289,920 on account of addition of share premium received on issue of shares under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act without appreciating facts and law, inter alia as under: 4.1 That section 56(2)(viib

Sansar Trading (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(2), Kol, Kolkata

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

ITA 544/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri A. N. Kesari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Bonnine Debarma, JCIT
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 56(2)(viib)Section 68

Share Premium of Rs.90/- charged by your appellant company on issue of new share capital at Rs.10/- per share. Because provision of Section 56(2)(viib) is effective from A.Y. 2013-14 relevant to determination of fair market value of share. Prior to above Section there has been no precedent

Kunjal Synergies Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 802/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 131Section 68

only on this basis , the issue price of the shares has been fixed by the assessee. The Ld. A.R also stated that Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act which provides for addition of income if the shares are issued at a price which is higher than fair 4 I.T.A ... assessee, The equity shares have been prised at Rs. 1,000/- each inclusive of premium of Rs.990/-. Moreover the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act are effective from AY 2013-14 and are not applicable to the year under consideration. We also note that all these facts

Neel Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, 15(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1168/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1168/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Neel Ventures Pvt. Ltd बिधम/ Ito-15(2)(3) B-47/187, Kalina Sunder 432, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Nagar Chs, Santacruz Maharashi Karve Road, (East), Mumbai-400098. Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn7025R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ashok Bansal Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 10.02.2023 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Validity Of The Reopening By Ao (Jurisdiction) U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). So The Legal Issue Is Taken Up First.

For Appellant: Shri Ashok BansalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. DR)
Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI PADMAVATHY S, AM

North Facing Real Tech Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 976/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Snehal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

Furnish, explanation together with a valuation report of share as at 01/04/2017 to justify amount of share premium within the meaning of section 56(2)(viib).” 9. Further, the assessee has submitted partial details on 20/04/2021. Accordingly, in the opinion of the AO, the assessee did not discharge the onus

Shobha Jain, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(5), Bengaluru

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

ITA 926/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2024AY 2017-18
Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD

M/S Effiel Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Ld.JCIT, (OSD), Circle-1(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 543/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 40Section 40aSection 56(2)(viib)

requisite details. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.33,166/- by disallowing of fine and penalty, Rs.3,60,281/- by applying provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, Rs.2,05,835/- u/s 40a(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on interest paid to NBFC. The Assessing

M/S Effiel Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 542/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 40Section 40aSection 56(2)(viib)

requisite details. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.33,166/- by disallowing of fine and penalty, Rs.3,60,281/- by applying provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, Rs.2,05,835/- u/s 40a(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on interest paid to NBFC. The Assessing

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1693/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blekeep Learning Resources Private Limited V. Income Tax Officer – 12(3)(2) D-Wing, Chanakya Chs Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Link Road, Mahavir Nagar Mumbai - 400020 Kandivali (W), Mumbai - 400067 Pan: Aadcc6594R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Kapil Sanghvi Department Represented By : Shri P.D. Chougule

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for one of the reason “large share premium received during the year (verify applicability of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act)”. Accordingly, notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee, in response ... assessee has adopted Net Asset Value Method for arriving the fair market value of the equity shares of the assessee company as per section 56(2)(viib) r.w. Rule 11UA I.T.Rules, the assessee has a choice Page No. 3 Keep Learning Resources Private Limited to adopt either Net Asset Value

DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Continental Corrugators Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1538/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

Rs.2,60,00,000/- on account of share premium received by the assessee-company in excess of Fair Market Value (FMV) under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 3. Briefly stated, the assessee-company is engaged in the business of corrugated boxes. In the course of scrutiny assessment ... each. In view of the absence of valuation report of Chartered Accountant in terms of Rule 11UA, the AO invoked the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) and considered the premium amount of Rs.26 per share to be in excess of Fair Market Value (FMV) of equity shares

ACIT Circle-7(2), New Delhi vs. Dhruv Milkose Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8431/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Chakrapani, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

challenged the additions of Rs.4,09,11,014/- made by the AO on account of share premium received on the contours of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 3. Briefly stated, the assessee filed return of income for Assessment Year 2015-16 in question, declaring total loss of Rs.1 ... share premium received per share on the ground that the premium received exceeded the Fair Market Value (FMV) of such shares contemplated under Section 56(2)(viib) r.w. Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The AO rejected the DCF Method adopted by the assessee and adopted Net Asset

Mira Mahal Premises Management Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A)- 4, Mumbai

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

ITA 7158/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Gala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 56(2)(viib)

furniture adopted at Rs. 33.58 crores as per Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules and to show-cause why the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act (the Act) should not be invoked. The assessee submitted before the AO that the assessee has adopted discounted ... Therefore, the AO rejected the valuation done by the assessee and made an addition of Rs. 4,44,66,200/- under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act being the difference between the value as computed by the assessee and M/s Mira Mahal Premises Management Pvt. Ltd. the value based

M/S Jr Fiber Glass Industries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2848/MUM/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2848/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Jr Fiber Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. AR)
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 68

exceeded the fair market value), which for the purpose of complete understanding of the law though not applicable is reproduced as under:- Section 56(2)(viib): "Where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year, from any person being ... account and that the same cannot be subject to tax as income. Specific submissions were also made in the context of introduction of section 56(2)(viib) inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013 which reads as under: "(viib) Where a company, not being a company

Jayanta Kumar Sardar, Bardhaman vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Durgapur.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1251/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'एसएमसी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA डॉ. मनीष

Rugby Regency P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range-21, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 653/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 M/S. Rugby Regency P. Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, 37-Ring Road, Range-21, Lajpat Nagar-Iv, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 024 Pan Aagcr5908K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhavi, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 56(2)(viib)

order and written submissions filed by the Ld AR The AO in the assessment order has added Rs 3,24,20,850/ under section 56(2)(viib) on account of shares being issued at excessive rate. The facts of the case are that the appellant company has issued ... excessive value recovered by the appellant company at Rs.3,24,20,850/- which has been added in the hands of the appellant under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 4.3. The appellant in the written submissions made during the appellate proceedings has tried to justify the financial projections

Tiki Tar Industries Baroda Ltd, Vadodara vs. The Pr. CIT-2, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 166/AHD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2014-15 Tiki Tar Industries Baroda Ltd. Pr.Cit-2 8Th Floor, Neptune Tower Vs Vadodara. Baroda Productivity Council Alkapuri, Vadodara Pan : Aadct 8382 Q

For Appellant: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263oSection 3

ld.Pr.CIT, the fair market value of the shares was below premium at which the shares were issued, accordinglythe provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act were invocable in the present case, and addition of Rs.64,65,000/- was warranted on account of the shares being issued ... thus the amount received by the assessee was, as per the ld.Pr.CIT, liable to be added to the income of the assessee under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. His calculationof the FMV of shares at Rs.47.07 per share is noted at page no.10 to 13 of its order