← 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)

Colour Creation Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-4(2), Delhi

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

ITA 2418/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shrisatbeer Singh Godara & Shri Shris.Rifaur Rahmancolour Creation Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax A-49, Naraina Industrial Area, Circle 4(2), Central Revenue Building, Phase-1, New Delhi-110028. I P Estate, New Delhi-110002. (Pan No. Aaecc0920A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ajay Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2025 Date Of Order : 21.01.2026 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: The Assesse Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl/Jcit-7, Mumbai Dated 13.02.2025 For Assessment Year 2017-18, Wherein The Assesse Has Raised Following Grounds:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Learned Cit (Appeals) Nfac Is Bad, Both In The Eye Of Law & On The Facts. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Learned Cit (Appeals) Nfac Has Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Passing The Order Without Giving Assessee A Proper & Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard In Clear Violation Of Principle Of Natural Justice. 3.(I). On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit (Appeals) Nfac Has Erred, Both On Facts & In Law, In Confirming The Assessment Order, Assessing The Loss Of The Assesseers. 11,10,00,840/- As Against The Returned Loss Of Rs. 11,13,22,840/-.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

quantitative details of relating to trading and finished goods are not submitted, large share premium received during the year (verify applicability of section 56(2)(viib) or any other relevant section, reduction in profit because of application of income computation & disclosure standers , opening written down value of fixed assets ... like goodwill. 3. After considering the submission of the assessee, the Assessing Officer rejected the same and in view of the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, observed that the exemption available is only to venture capital undertaking from a venture capital company or a venture capital

Rivet Health Club Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 2(2), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6182/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

made under 68 of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) also confirmed the income of the assessee of Rs.5,76,679/- by invoking the section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) also confirmed the protective addition of Rs. 26,39,050/- and the difference of the interest shown ... case, Assessing Officer has not substituted any of his own method or valuation albeit has simply rejected the valuation of the assessee. 33. 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

Suresh Vitthalrao Barge, Beed vs. Ward-1(5), Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed as per the

ITA 1398/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Digambar Surwase, CAFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 44ASection 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

56(2) (viib) of IT Act, 1961. The Ld CIT(A) erred in holding that provisions of section 56(2)(viib) applicable to stock in trade. The appellant prays for just, proper and appropriate relief. 4. On facts and circumstances of case and in law, CIT(A) erred in confirming

Vidya Buildcon Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

ITA 4654/MUM/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

addition was made by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR further submitted that the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) and section 68 were amended w.e.f. AY 2013-14, whereas the relevant order was AY 2010-11, thus provisions of these sections were ... submitted that such issue was raised before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) and categorically submitted before him that the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) r.w.r. 11UA have come into force only from AY 2013-14 and AY 2018-19 respectively, therefore such provisions cannot apply in the case

Vidya Buildcon Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 8 (3) (3), Aayakar Bhavan

ITA 4650/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

addition was made by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR further submitted that the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) and section 68 were amended w.e.f. AY 2013-14, whereas the relevant order was AY 2010-11, thus provisions of these sections were ... submitted that such issue was raised before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) and categorically submitted before him that the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) r.w.r. 11UA have come into force only from AY 2013-14 and AY 2018-19 respectively, therefore such provisions cannot apply in the case

Refiral Solutions Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Gurgaon

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 8306/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 8306/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Refiral Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, House No. 1789, Third Floor, Sector- Ward-3(5), 46, Gurgaon-122002 Gurgaon-1220088 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcr0604D Assessee By: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.01.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A), Kolkata’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1081746005(1) Dated 14.10.2025, In Proceedings U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 56(2)(viib)

length. Case file perused. 3. Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive issue challenging both the learned lower authorities respective findings making section 56(2)(viib) addition of alleged unjustifiable share premium amounting to Rs.30,98,800/-; made in assessment order dated 04.12.2017 and upheld to the extent of Rs.29 ... same, the assessing officer was not justified in making addition on this issue. In this regard, as already discussed above, the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the I.T. Act (prevalent during that year) is reproduced: “where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially

Mayur Kanubhai Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 1992)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5600/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rishav PatawariFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

assessee for explanation related to difference of agreement value and the stamp duty value of the property which will contravening provision of section 56 (2)(viib) of the Act. The assessee complied & explained that the assessee purchased the said lad in nature rural agricultural land. So, the alleged section ... this land. Finally the Ld. AO rejected the assessee’s explanation and added back the difference amount to Rs.1,75,97,097/- under section 56(2)(viib). The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) uphold the assessment order. Being aggrieved assessee filed

Hero Fincorp Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 11(1), Delhi, C.R. Building

ITA 2542/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2542/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year:2017-18 Hero Fincop Ltd., 34 Community Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1) C. R. Building, New Delhi-110002 अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Pan:Aaach0157J Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Shri Himanshu Aggarwal Adv. Revenue By Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14.01.2026 उद्घोषणाकीतारीख/Pronouncement On 16.01.2026 आदेश /Order Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am, The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of ‘Hire Purchase Leasing & Finance'. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/(First Appellate Authority Hereinafter Referred As “Faa”), Delhi Dated 27.03.2024 Arising Out Of Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 29.12.2019For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Disallowance Of Provision For Collection Charges -Rs. 9,75,00,000/-

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 251(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

rectification order dated 09.05.2023 passed by the assessing officer under section 154 deleting the incorrect addition of Rs.418,66,34,625 made under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, to be non- est and in restoring the additions made in the assessment order. 13. That the NFAC grossly erred ... thereafter, dismissing the ground raised as not adjudicated', rather than deleting the incorrect addition of Rs.418,66,34,625 made under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 14. That the impugned order passed by the NFAC is in gross violation of provisions of sections

M/S. Krian Cinema Banquests Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 10(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing

ITA 4860/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagdish

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

Scrutiny.” The issue identified for examination was the receipt of a large share premium during the year, specifically to verify the applicability of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, as reflected in Part A–BS of the return of income. In terms of CBDT Instruction No. 20/2015, the scope ... establish the identity and creditworthiness of the subscribers and the genuineness of the transactions. With respect to valuation under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, the assessee furnished a valuation report issued by a registered valuer. As regards the NRI subscribers, the assessee duly complied with RBI directions

M/S Scania Commercial Vehicles India Pvt Ltfd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

The Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 261/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 92C

allowed. 28. Ground no. 3 of the Appeal is with respect to an addition of Rs. 198 crores under the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act for the reason for consideration received for issue of shares exceeding the fair market value of such shares. During the year ... share. ITA Nos. 261 & 777/Bang/2022 Page 12 of 18 29. It is the claim of the Assessee that, that provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act are only attracted for the consideration for issue of shares as received from a resident. However, the Assessing Officer, in the draft

Asirvad Micro Finance Limited, Anna Salai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1140/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1140/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Asirvad Micro Finance Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of No.9, 9Th Floor, Club House Road, Income Tax, Annasalai, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai-600 002 Chennai. [Pan: Aagca5275J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.P.R.Prasanna Varma, Fca & Mr.Arjun Rajagopalan, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.P.R.Prasanna Varma, FCA &For Respondent: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 2(18)Section 2(71)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 8

upholding of the disallowance of Rs.42,29,48,758/- by the Ld.CIT(A) which was made by the Ld.AO invoking provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. It was contested that the addition by the Ld.AO was based upon an arbitrary application of Rule-11UA of the Income ... Learned Assessing Officer and the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in law and on facts in invoking the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of share premium received by the Appellant. b. Provisions of sec.56(2) (viib

Vaksons Metaplast Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. PCIT(Central), Delhi

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

ITA 2218/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 143Section 153Section 153CSection 234ASection 263Section 69C

coming to the addition made by the CIT(A) amounting to 3,58,65,500/- by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer in the body of the assessment order has neither discussed this issue nor made

Vaksons Metaplast Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. PCIT(Central), Delhi

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

ITA 2217/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 143Section 153Section 153CSection 234ASection 263Section 69C

coming to the addition made by the CIT(A) amounting to 3,58,65,500/- by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer in the body of the assessment order has neither discussed this issue nor made

Vaksons Metaplast Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. PCIT(Central), Delhi

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

ITA 2216/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 143Section 153Section 153CSection 234ASection 263Section 69C

coming to the addition made by the CIT(A) amounting to 3,58,65,500/- by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer in the body of the assessment order has neither discussed this issue nor made

DCIT Central Circle 7 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Soyumm Marketing Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue, being ITA no

ITA 4306/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1) Room No.653, Aaykar Bhawan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020 V/S Spectra Realities Private Limited, 9, Floor-I, Plot – 51, Kapadia Chamber, Devji Ratansi Marg, ……………… Respondent Chinchbunder, Mumbai – 400009 Pan: Aalcs7233B Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1) Room No.653, Aaykar Bhawan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr.AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by AO of Rs. 8,70,41,565/- under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act disregarding the fact that the assessee has issued Cumulative Redeemable Preference shares which is not traded on the exchange. 2 ... case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by AO of Rs. 8,70,41,565/- under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act since the same has been done by AO by following the valuation guidelines of SEBI for Mutual Funds

DCIT Central Circle 7 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Spectra Realties Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue, being ITA no

ITA 4304/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1) Room No.653, Aaykar Bhawan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020 V/S Spectra Realities Private Limited, 9, Floor-I, Plot – 51, Kapadia Chamber, Devji Ratansi Marg, ……………… Respondent Chinchbunder, Mumbai – 400009 Pan: Aalcs7233B Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1) Room No.653, Aaykar Bhawan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr.AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by AO of Rs. 8,70,41,565/- under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act disregarding the fact that the assessee has issued Cumulative Redeemable Preference shares which is not traded on the exchange. 2 ... case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by AO of Rs. 8,70,41,565/- under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act since the same has been done by AO by following the valuation guidelines of SEBI for Mutual Funds

Proton Positive Health Care India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle -16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 812/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.812/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Proton Positive Health Vs. Assistant Commissioner Care India Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle-16(2), Pan: Aafcp6862K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 03/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (For Short, “Cit(A)”) Dated 07/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”) Dated 28/06/2019 For Ay 2016-17. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Passed By The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)

concealment of income and hence invalid. 6. The Assessing Officer erred in levying penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars with regard to addition under Section 56(2)(viib) being a deemed income. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and/or withdraw any or all the above grounds ... business income as compared to preceding year; and (ii) large scale share premium received during the subject year with respect to applicability of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 3 Proton Positive Healthcare India Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO observed

Intermesh Shopping Network Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 12(3), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1579/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarintermesh Shopping Network Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, Lower Ground Unit No. 1-06, Ward-12(3), Boomerang, Chandivali Farmroad, Delhi Chandivali, Mumbai-400072 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaci7990L

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Dhawan, Adv (VC)For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

shares may be calculated as per Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules and difference of valuation of shares may be added under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. The assessee in response , vide letter dated 16-11-2018 replied that Himanshu Bansal is a qualified chartered accountant ... minus 57,13,800) as consideration received over and above the fair market value under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act and completed the assessment. This action of the Learned AO was upheld by the Learned NFAC. 7. It is not in dispute that the assessee had valued

Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4800/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 1Section 143Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)

Annexure-1 & 2. b. Point 2: It is submitted that the valuation of the shares was done in accordance with the provision of section 56(2) (viib) of the Act r.w.r 11UA(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 based on the net assets of the assessee ... Further, it is submitted that calculation of FMV of unquoted equity shares of the assessee as per section 56(2)(viib) read with Rule 11UA(2) has already been furnished in point no. 12(d) of reply dated 23.10.2019. 2. We hope you will find the same in order

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. M/S. Indic Wisdom Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 5922/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Jigar MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. D/R
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

transactions, the source of the share premium, and the identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders, as well as the applicability of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act; and (ii) a significant mismatch between the turnover disclosed in the Income-tax Return (ITR) and the turnover reported in the GSTR ... CBDT Circular No. F.No.173/149/2019-ITA-1 dated 10/10/2023. As per these directives, where the assessee is a DPIIT-recognised start-up, the applicability of section 56(2)(viib) is not to be examined by the Assessing Officer. Notwithstanding this, the Ld. AO proceeded to treat the entire share premium as unexplained