← 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)

Movefast Automobiles Private Limited, Haryana vs. ITO Ward-1(5), Faridabad

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 101/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sumangla Saxena, Adv &For Respondent: . Arvind Kumar Bansal
Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

income of appellant as 251(1) of the Act by Rs. 70,83,500/-/- under the head income from other sources by applying section 56(2)(viib) of the Act on protective basis and rejecting the valuation report furnished under Rule 11UA(2)(b) of Income Tax Rules ... income of the assessee u/s 251(1) of the Act by Rs. 70,83,500/- under the head of other sources by applying Section 56(2) (viib) of the Act on protective basis and rejected the valuation report submitted as per Rule 11UA(2)(b) of the Income 4 Movefast

Madhava Home Decor Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(5), Faridabad

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 82/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sumangla Saxena, Adv &For Respondent: . Arvind Kumar Bansal
Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

income of appellant as 251(1) of the Act by Rs. 64,00,400/- under the head income from other sources by applying section 56(2)(viib) of the Act on protective basis and rejecting the valuation report furnished under Rule 11UA(2)(b) of Income Tax Rules ... assessee u/s 251(1) of the Act by Rs. 64,00,400/- under the head income from other sources by applying Section 56 (2)(viib) of the Act on protective basis and rejected the valuation report as per Rule 11UA(2)(b) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Aggrieved

Blp Vayu (Project-1) P.Ltd, Gurgaon vs. Pr.CIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4895/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

preceding Assessment Year 2013-14 which was also subjected to scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, the compliance of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act was also verified in the Assessment Year 2014-15 in question. Specific queries have been raised with regard to the aspects ... shares were allotted to its 100% holding company and none else and therefore, there was no warrant to invoke the deeming fiction of Section 56(2)(viib) in the context of the case. It was thereafter submitted that the allotment have been carried out in tune with the valuation report

ACIT, Central Circle-263, New Delhi vs. Naresh Kumar Jian, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue

ITA 1754/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR

under:- “27. We have gone through order of the ld. CIT(A) in detail. The ld. CIT(A) concurrently considered the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) and Section 50C, report of the DVO and the stamp duty valuation (circle rates). The ld. CIT(A) held that the value

ACIT, Central Circle-263, New Delhi vs. Naresh Kumar Jian, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue

ITA 1753/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR

under:- “27. We have gone through order of the ld. CIT(A) in detail. The ld. CIT(A) concurrently considered the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) and Section 50C, report of the DVO and the stamp duty valuation (circle rates). The ld. CIT(A) held that the value

ACIT, Central Circle-263, New Delhi vs. Naresh Kumar Jian, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue

ITA 1752/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR

under:- “27. We have gone through order of the ld. CIT(A) in detail. The ld. CIT(A) concurrently considered the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) and Section 50C, report of the DVO and the stamp duty valuation (circle rates). The ld. CIT(A) held that the value

ACIT, Central Circle-263, New Delhi vs. Naresh Kumar Jian, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue

ITA 1751/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR

under:- “27. We have gone through order of the ld. CIT(A) in detail. The ld. CIT(A) concurrently considered the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) and Section 50C, report of the DVO and the stamp duty valuation (circle rates). The ld. CIT(A) held that the value

ACIT, Central Circle-263, New Delhi vs. Naresh Kumar Jian, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue

ITA 1750/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR

under:- “27. We have gone through order of the ld. CIT(A) in detail. The ld. CIT(A) concurrently considered the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) and Section 50C, report of the DVO and the stamp duty valuation (circle rates). The ld. CIT(A) held that the value

ACIT, Central Circle-263, New Delhi vs. Naresh Kumar Jian, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue

ITA 1749/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR

under:- “27. We have gone through order of the ld. CIT(A) in detail. The ld. CIT(A) concurrently considered the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) and Section 50C, report of the DVO and the stamp duty valuation (circle rates). The ld. CIT(A) held that the value

Naresh Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue

ITA 1331/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR

under:- “27. We have gone through order of the ld. CIT(A) in detail. The ld. CIT(A) concurrently considered the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) and Section 50C, report of the DVO and the stamp duty valuation (circle rates). The ld. CIT(A) held that the value

Naresh Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue

ITA 1330/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR

under:- “27. We have gone through order of the ld. CIT(A) in detail. The ld. CIT(A) concurrently considered the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) and Section 50C, report of the DVO and the stamp duty valuation (circle rates). The ld. CIT(A) held that the value

Naresh Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue

ITA 1329/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR

under:- “27. We have gone through order of the ld. CIT(A) in detail. The ld. CIT(A) concurrently considered the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) and Section 50C, report of the DVO and the stamp duty valuation (circle rates). The ld. CIT(A) held that the value

Naresh Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue

ITA 1328/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR

under:- “27. We have gone through order of the ld. CIT(A) in detail. The ld. CIT(A) concurrently considered the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) and Section 50C, report of the DVO and the stamp duty valuation (circle rates). The ld. CIT(A) held that the value

Naresh Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue

ITA 1327/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR

under:- “27. We have gone through order of the ld. CIT(A) in detail. The ld. CIT(A) concurrently considered the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) and Section 50C, report of the DVO and the stamp duty valuation (circle rates). The ld. CIT(A) held that the value

Naresh Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue

ITA 1326/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR

under:- “27. We have gone through order of the ld. CIT(A) in detail. The ld. CIT(A) concurrently considered the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) and Section 50C, report of the DVO and the stamp duty valuation (circle rates). The ld. CIT(A) held that the value

Naresh Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue

ITA 1325/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR

under:- “27. We have gone through order of the ld. CIT(A) in detail. The ld. CIT(A) concurrently considered the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) and Section 50C, report of the DVO and the stamp duty valuation (circle rates). The ld. CIT(A) held that the value

ITO Ward -3(1), New Delhi vs. Appealing Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1958/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 1958/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S Appealing Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 921A, 9Th Floor, Devika Tower, Ward-3(1), New Delhi-110002 Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaica8767B

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Agarwal, AR &For Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 42Section 56(2)(viib)Section 57(2)(viib)

consideration for issue of shares in F.Y. 2010-11 and the shares were allotted in F.Y. 2014-15 and hence the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) which have come into force from 01.04.2013 cannot be applicable. 6. Aggrieved, the revenue filed appeal before us. 3 Appealing Infrastructure ... appeal was argued on two issues, a. Whether the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib)are applicable for the instant year while the amounts have been received in F.Y. 2010-11. b. Whether the AO is right within his domain to reject the valuation report filed by the assessee

Sis Prosegur Holdings Pvt Ltd, Patna vs. Pr.CIT-1, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 47/PAT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.47/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sis Prosegur Holdings Pvt. Ltd...…………....….........…..........….…… Appellant Annapoorna Bhawan, Patliputra Telephone Exchange, Kurji, Patna, Bihar-800010 [Pan: Aaucs7524A] Vs. Pcit-1, Patna..................................…………........….....…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Nageswar Rao, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 18, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 25.03.2021 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Ld. Pcit While Examining Assessment Records Found That The Assessee During The Year Had Issued 900000 Equity Shares Of Rs.10/- At A Premium Of Rs.90/- Per Share Totalling Rs.100/- Per Share. The Ld. Pcit Further Observed As Under: It Is To Be Noted That, During The Year Under Consideration, The Provisions Of Section 56(2)(Viib) Were Applicable As Per Which If Aggregate Consideration For Issuance Of Shares Is More Than Fair Market

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

share. The ld. PCIT further observed as under: It is to be noted that, during the year under consideration, the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) were applicable as per which if aggregate consideration for issuance of shares is more than fair market I.T.A. No.47/Pat/2021 Assessment Year ... revenue within the meaning of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Therefore, the ld. PCIT noting that the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act was applicable and that the Assessing Officer has not examined the above aspect relating to the fair market value

ACIT Circle-10(1), New Delhi vs. Gamma Pizzakraft (Overseas) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1309/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. T. M. Shiva Kumar, Adv. &For Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 31(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

assessing the income at Rs. 14,56,05,630/- after making an addition of Rs.24,80,39,169/- under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 5. During the year, the assessee company had issued 54,33,548 equity shares to Sapphire Foods India Pvt. Ltd. at a premium ... India (CCI) vide its order dated 13.08.2015 under section 31(1) of Competition Act, 2002. 3 Gamma Pizzakraft (Overseas) Pvt. Ltd. Invocation of Section 56(2)(viib): 6. The assessee company has obtained a valuation report from the Chartered Accountant as required under Rule 11UA(2)(b) of IT Rules

Cnr Leading Softek Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 6(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7801/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2023AY 2013-14
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

Value (NAV) Method was in accordance with Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules which is the prescribed method for the purpose of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 6. The ld. AO resorted to value the shares of the assessee company using Net Asset Value Method ... addition is deleted on this aspect of the issue, the other grounds raised by the assessee on the non-applicability of provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act in the instance case, need not be gone into and they are left open. Accordingly, the grounds raised