“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)

Paath Financial Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 15 (1)(4), Mumbai

ITA 6833/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr.Poojan Mehta.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Soumendu Kumar

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-4(1), Central Range-4, Mumbai vs. M/S.Runwal Projects Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, the additions in all the 3 assessment years deleted by Ld. CIT (A) are confirmed and the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5970/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5970/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 634/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6027/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Respondent: Shri Jayant Jhaveri, Ld. DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 68

order to cover a situation where a company receives any consideration for issue of shares exceeding the face value, the statute has brought section 56(2)(viib) by Finance Act 2012, w.e.f. 1.04.2013, i.e., from AY 2103-14 and such deeming provision cannot be applied

Rakyan Beverages Private Limited, Raigarh vs. ACIT 5(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 120/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Mane (DR)

Section 68

Rule 11UA, as it stood then, in AY 2018-19. Even otherwise, inviting our attention to the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, he contended that the valuation guidelines did not apply to shares issued by private companies to non-residents. The Ld. counsel also pointed ... Certificate using DCF method, and filed along with the Form FC-GPR through the authorized banker. As far as the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) r.w.s 2(24)(xvi) of the 1961 Act is concerned, it is noted that the said provision is relevant for issuance of shares

M/S Wavell Investments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1644/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd. Jt. Cit (Osd) 15, Mohindra House, 2(3)(1) Room No. 552, 5 Th Floor, J N Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacw0598C M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd. Jt. Cit (Osd) 15, Mohindra House, 2(3)(1) Room No. 552, 5 Th Floor, J N Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Ms Ritika Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2022

For Appellant: Ms Ritika Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(i)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

BECAUSE, the CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in falling to consider that for the purposes of section 56(2)(viib), the higher of the two prescribed valuations is to be taken. 5. BECAUSE, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding ... report dated 30 November 2014 along with the working of the valuation of the share. The learned Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of Section 56(2) (viib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (The Act) and asked assessee to justify premium. Assessee did not submit any justification for the same

Jt. CIT(OSD)-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1288/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms Ritika Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(i)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

DCIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Majni Karamshi Patel, Mumbai

In the result, the cross objections of the assessee and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6128/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal, Accountat Member Dcit, Cc-7(3) Vs. Shri Manji Karamshi Room No. 655, Patel Aayakar Bhavan, Office No. 1, Patel M.K.Road, Bhavan-29, Vijaywadi, Mumbai.-400020. Dr. Nagindas N Shah Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 45/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2014-15) Shri Manji Karamshi Vs. Dcit, Cc-7(3) Patel Room No. 655, Aayakar Office No. 1, Patel Bhavan, Bhuvan-29, Vijaywadi, M.K .Road, Dr. Nagindas N Shah Mumbai-400002. Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Rushab Mehta.ARFor Respondent: Shri .T .Shankar.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

that of a share allotment that here the valuation for charging premium is not justified, it will make the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act redundant and nugatory. This cannot be the intention of the Legislature especially when the amendments in the two sections are brought

Privilege Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 14, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 3317/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax– M/S Privilege Industries Ltd. 14 3Rd Floor, Dheeraj Arma, Anant Room No. 415, Vs. Kanekar Marg, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs6532N

For Appellant: Mr. Nimesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay V. Deshmukh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(viib)

failed to determine the correct fair market value of shares issued and whether any sum is assessable to tax in terms of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. Privilege Industrial Ltd; A.Y. 14–15 02. The fact says that assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing ... been placed on record and ld AO has not examined to ensure whether share valuation is in accordance with the provision of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act or not. Therefore, a notice under Section 263 of the Act was issued on 12 March 2018. 04. Assessee submitted

DCIT - 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Unique Land Realty Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3531/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Section 133(6)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

deleting the addition of Rs. 8.71 crores made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Act and also alternatively under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 2. Facts relating to the issue are stated in brief. The assessee is engaged in real estate business. During the year ... crore as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 3. The Assessing Officer, alternatively, assessed the above said amount under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act on the following reasoning:- (a) The Chartered Accountant, who issued valuation report, has followed “Discounted free cash flow method

M/S Majju Image & Brand Consultants Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 2015/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Majju Image & Brand Consultants Pvt. Ltd., The Pr. No. G1, Accolade Commissioner Of Apartments, Income Tax, Millers Road, 2Nd Cross, Bangalore – 4, Benson Town, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 046. Pan: Aaicm6586E Appellant Respondent : Shri B.S. Balachandran, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order U/S. 263 Dated 25/01/2018 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit, Bangalore – 4 For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Revisionary Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Pcit) U/S.263 Dated; 25-01-2018 Is Opposed To The Facts Of The Case & The Law & Therefore, It Is Liable To Be Set-Aside.

For Respondent: Shri B.S. Balachandran

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

note that the Ld.AO while passing the order giving to order u/s. 263 rejected the DCF method and applied the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) for making disallowance of the difference being the excess fair market value by computing as under: Page 14 of 15 Consideration received for issue ... disallowance by the Ld.AO has not been made u/s. 68 of the Act but the disallowance is made by applying provisions of section 56(2)(viib) which cannot be applicable to the present facts of the case. In our view, based on such peculiar facts, 263 proceedings cannot be upheld

Dy CIT. Circle-1, Thane vs. M/S Travecom Global P. Ltd., Bhayander

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 59/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Circle 1 V. M/S. Travecom Global Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 22, B-Wing B/607, Krishnakunj 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park Salasar Brij Bhoomi Wagle Industrial Estate Bhayander (W)-401101 Thane (W)-400604 Pan: Aaect8729Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji Department By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi

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

above observations Assessing Officer rejected valuation report and the share premium received at ₹.1,75,03,410/- is added as per provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), before the Ld.CIT(A) assessee made detailed submissions before ... show cause notice are as under 1. This case was selected for scrutiny under the category "Limited Scrutiny" to verify applicability of Section 56(2) (viib) of the I. T. Act, 1961 with regard to large share premium received during the year under consideration. 2. The assessee had shown positive

ACIT Circle-3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Chemicon Engineering Consultant Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 833/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7907/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Chemicon Engineering बिधम/ Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Room No.607, Aayakar Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 833/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) बिधम/ Chemicon Engineering Room No.607, Aayakar Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2686H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & Revenue Respectively Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-08, Mumbai Dated 29.11.2019 For The A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Both The Parties Are As Follows: Assessee Grounds: - 1. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 (The “Act”) & A.Ys.2013-14 Chemicon Engineering That By The Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act So Far It Relates To In Confirming Of The Additions To The Extent Of A) Rs. 6,22,05,000/- Received From Certain Companies Out Of Total Rs. 13,13,50,000/- In Respect Of Shares Allotted Against Share Application Money;

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

appreciating the fact that the share premium amount received was over and above the Jair market value of the shares in terms of section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 11UA of the Income tax Rule 1962 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances

Chemicon Engineering Consultant Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 3 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7907/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Radiant Life Care Mumbai P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 896/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 Radiant Life Care Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., Principle Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor Man Excellenza, S.V. Income Tax Mumbai-3, Road, Vile Parle (W), Vs. R. No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400056. Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aagcr 9198 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Gupta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 56(2)

assessment proceedings and the learned Assessing Officer has accepted the valuation & allowed the depreciation after making proper & specific enquiry with reference to Section 56(2) (viib) for valuation of shares and Section 32 for depreciation on intangible asset. The assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer after due application ... interest of the revenue and hence the order of revision is bad in law. 3. The Learned PCIT failed to appreciate that Section 56(2) (viib) is not attracted in the facts of the present case as Appellant has issued shares on premium on the basis of valuation report obtained

Radiant Life Care Mumbai P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 895/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Gupta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 56(2)

M/S. Te Connectivity Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 300/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.300/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Sheshadri & Ms. Amulya K., CAsFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

case of Cinestaan Entertainment (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO, reported in [2019] 106 taxmann.com 300 (Delhi Tribunal), has held as under: ‘“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 provides that ... view the entire facts of the case, the reports of the valuer, the comparison of the actual and projected revenues, provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) and keeping in view the order of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Cinestaan Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 177 ITD 809 wherein

Acron Hospitality P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -6, Mumbai

ITA 878/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Mishra

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

receipt by the Appellant in excess of the aforesaid fair market value should have been taxed in the hands of the Appellant under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. According to the PCIT, the Assessing Officer failed to examine these aspects in the assessment proceedings which resulted in passing

Chalk Farm Ventures P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -1, Thane

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

ITA 906/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.906/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17) बनधम/ Chalk Farm Ventures Pvt. Pcit-1 Ltd. B Wing, Ashar It Park, Vs. 6Th Floor, Wagle No.202, Delta Building, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Industrial Estate, Thane- Mumbai-400076. 400604 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcc0332A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Sanjay Parikh Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2016-17 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Provisions U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - 2. “Ground A: Proceeding U/S 263 Of The It Act Is Invalid & Bad In Law 1. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Thane-1, (Pr. Cit) Erred In Facts & In Passing The Order U/S. 263 Without Appreciating That The Appellant Company Was Under Liquidation & No Order U/S. 263 Could Be Passed Without Giving Adequate Notice To The Liquidator Of The Appellant Company. 2. He Appellant Prays That Your Honour Hold That The Order Passed By The Ao U/S. 263 Is Bad In Law As The Same Is Passed Without Issuing Notice To The Liquidator Of The Appellant Company.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 371(1)

Please note that Ribbit Capital Mauratius Ill and On Mauritius are SEBI registered Venture Capital Fund. As per the provision to Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the said provision is not applicable where the consideration for issue of shares is received by a venture capital

DCIT Circle-15 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Rankin Infrastructure Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Ground No. 2 and 3 raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7288/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Circle – 15(3)(1) V. M/S. Rankin Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 451, 4Th Floor Next To Classic Marble Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Subash Nagar Road, Bhandup (E) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai -400078 Pan: Aafcs5275B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal Department By : Shri T. Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar

Section 56(2)(viib)

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the section 56(2)(viib) is applicable in the year of receipt of consideration and not in the year of issuance of shares. 2. “On the facts and in the circumstances ... Total 28,75,00,000 5. Based on the above information, Assessing Officer asked the assessee to justify why the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) r.w. Rule 11UA of the Act be not attracted. In response, assessee filed its submission before him. However, Assessing Officer rejected the submissions made

M/S Poddar Finin Consultancy P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-7(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1860/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1860/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Poddar Finin Consultancy बिधम/ Ito Ward Pvt. Ltd. Maharashtra-410206. Vs. 4A/B, Ground Floor, Tk Industries Estate, Sitaram Palturam Murai Marg, Mumbai- 400015. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcp3938D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 06.08.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1) The Assessment Order Passed By The Id. Assessing Officer (Ao) Is Invalid & Bad In Law. 2) (A) The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. AR)

Section 143(2)Section 35DSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM

DCIT 6 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Kilitch Healthcare India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross objection is held to be infructuous

ITA 7061/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viia)Section 56(2)(viib)

premium of Rs.990 to Vulcan Developers Pvt. Ltd (VDPL) during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer opined that since the provision of section 56(2)(viib) were applicable to this year which lays down that any consideration received for issue of shares that exceeds the face value of such ... assessee as to why the excess amount than the share value worked out by her received should not be taxed as income under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 5. Assessee during the assessment proceedings submitted that, the company issued 'preference shares' not the equity shares. Preference shares