← 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)

Rockdale Realtors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-2 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the respective assessees are dismissed

ITA 6740/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 6739/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2014-15) Royal Accord Realtors Pvt. Ltd. 26, Onlooker Building, Sir P.M.Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aadcr-1352-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dcit, Circle -2(1)(1) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 6740/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2014-15) Rockdale Realtors Pvt.Ltd. 9, Datrutwa, Mmg Marg, Dadar East, Mumbai 400 014. Pan: Aadcr-1353-H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dcit, Circle -2(1)(1) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri T.Shankar सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 04/03/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri T.Shankar
Section 115VSection 288ASection 56(2)(viib)Section 79

marginal difference of 1.1% was on account of rounding off the value per share to the nearest hundred and therefore the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) were not attracted and the addition of Rs. 48,75,000/- was required to be deleted.” 5. Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi appearing on behalf ... Assessing Officer treated the difference of Rs.39/-( i.e. Rs.3600 - Rs.3560.77) as income under the 3 ITA NO.6740/MUM/2019(A.Y 2014-15) provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’). The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee contended that the assessee had determined the fair

Royal Accord Realtors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the respective assessees are dismissed

ITA 6739/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 6739/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2014-15) Royal Accord Realtors Pvt. Ltd. 26, Onlooker Building, Sir P.M.Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aadcr-1352-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dcit, Circle -2(1)(1) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 6740/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2014-15) Rockdale Realtors Pvt.Ltd. 9, Datrutwa, Mmg Marg, Dadar East, Mumbai 400 014. Pan: Aadcr-1353-H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dcit, Circle -2(1)(1) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri T.Shankar सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 04/03/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri T.Shankar
Section 115VSection 288ASection 56(2)(viib)Section 79

marginal difference of 1.1% was on account of rounding off the value per share to the nearest hundred and therefore the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) were not attracted and the addition of Rs. 48,75,000/- was required to be deleted.” 5. Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi appearing on behalf ... Assessing Officer treated the difference of Rs.39/-( i.e. Rs.3600 - Rs.3560.77) as income under the 3 ITA NO.6740/MUM/2019(A.Y 2014-15) provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’). The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee contended that the assessee had determined the fair

ITO 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Suntech Peripherals P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3502/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No. 3502/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito – 1(3)(2) M/S Suntech Peripherals Pvt. Ltd. 5Th Floor, R. No. 541 बिाम 2-B, Prem Kutir, 177 Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road Babubhai Chinoi Road / Vs. Mubmai-400 020 Marine Drive, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcs-6873-P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jotwani – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang Boman Irani – Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 24/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 18/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai [Cit(A)], Dated 28/02/2017 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) On 30/03/2015. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Read As Under: - 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Share Premium Received On The Ground That It Was A Capital Receipt When In Reality There Is Accretion To Assets Without A Corresponding Increase In Claimable Liability (Shares & Premium Reserve) & Therefore Determining The Nature Of Such Receipt Of Share Premium As Income On It Remaining

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jotwani – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

1 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “जी” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री

Varad Vinayak Realty Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 1 (3)-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection and cross appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 612/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar& Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanito, 11-3(2), Room No. 428, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ............ Appellant Vs. M/S Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd., 105, Vastushilp, Rajmata Jijabai Road, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aabcv7419A ............ Respondent C.O. No. 50/Mum/2019 In Ita No.5279/Mum/2017 (A.Y.2009-10) M/S Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd., 105, Vastushilp, Rajmata Jijabai Road, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aabcv7419A ............ Appellant Vs. Ito, 11-3(2), Room No. 428, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ............ Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. S.N. Kabra, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Pawan Chakrapani, AR
Section 68

premium but also its nature. The assessee has offered explanation simply stating that the excessive share premium is covered by the provisions of section 56(2) (viib) of the IT act 1961 and is applicable from 2013-14. The assessee company has failed to establish the interest on the value ... provision of section 68 of IT act 1961. It may also be mentioned that the assessee plea that provisions of section 56(2)(viib_) of the IT act 1961 and is applicable from AY 2013 – 14 is not acceptable as these provisions are clarification and therefore applicable to the excessive

Income Tax Officer 11(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Varad Vinayak Realty Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection and cross appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5279/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar& Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanito, 11-3(2), Room No. 428, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ............ Appellant Vs. M/S Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd., 105, Vastushilp, Rajmata Jijabai Road, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aabcv7419A ............ Respondent C.O. No. 50/Mum/2019 In Ita No.5279/Mum/2017 (A.Y.2009-10) M/S Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd., 105, Vastushilp, Rajmata Jijabai Road, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aabcv7419A ............ Appellant Vs. Ito, 11-3(2), Room No. 428, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ............ Respondent M/S Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd., 105, Vastushilp, Rajmata Jijabai Road, Pump House, Andheri (E)

For Appellant: Sh. S.N. Kabra, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Pawan Chakrapani, AR
Section 68

premium but also its nature. The assessee has offered explanation simply stating that the excessive share premium is covered by the provisions of section 56(2) (viib) of the IT act 1961 and is applicable from 2013-14. The assessee company has failed to establish the interest on the value ... provision of section 68 of IT act 1961. It may also be mentioned that the assessee plea that provisions of section 56(2)(viib_) of the IT act 1961 and is applicable from AY 2013 – 14 is not acceptable as these provisions are clarification and therefore applicable to the excessive