← 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)

Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai vs. Bona Sera Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 863/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri M. M. Golwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Fragment Nivesh P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 572/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Enormous Nivesh Pvt. Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., 1, Zamrudpur Community Income Tax, Central Circle Centre, Kailash Colony, 13, Ara Centre, New Delhi – 1100 48 Jhandewalan Extension, Pan No. Aabcd1454F Delhi -1100 55 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Fragment Nivesh P. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 1, Zamrudpur Community Income Tax, Central Circle Centre, Kailash Colony, 13, Ara Centre, New Delhi – 1100 48 Jhandewalan Extension, Pan No. Aaecs5314G Delhi -1100 55 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Avikal Manu, CIT - DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 56(2)

allotment of shares does not fall u/s 56(2) (viia) of the act and instead for allotment of shares provisions section 56(2) (viib) applies and therefore, the addition made is illegal and bad in law. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the action ... allotment of shares does not fall u/s 56(2) (viia) of the act and instead for allotment of shares provisions section 56(2) (viib) applies and therefore, the addition made is illegal and bad in law. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the action

Enormous Nivesh P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 570/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Enormous Nivesh Pvt. Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., 1, Zamrudpur Community Income Tax, Central Circle Centre, Kailash Colony, 13, Ara Centre, New Delhi – 1100 48 Jhandewalan Extension, Pan No. Aabcd1454F Delhi -1100 55 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Fragment Nivesh P. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 1, Zamrudpur Community Income Tax, Central Circle Centre, Kailash Colony, 13, Ara Centre, New Delhi – 1100 48 Jhandewalan Extension, Pan No. Aaecs5314G Delhi -1100 55 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Avikal Manu, CIT - DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 56(2)

allotment of shares does not fall u/s 56(2) (viia) of the act and instead for allotment of shares provisions section 56(2) (viib) applies and therefore, the addition made is illegal and bad in law. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the action ... allotment of shares does not fall u/s 56(2) (viia) of the act and instead for allotment of shares provisions section 56(2) (viib) applies and therefore, the addition made is illegal and bad in law. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the action

Uniproducts (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6596/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhuniproducts (India) Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle 27(1), Khasra No. 360-361, Room No. 193, C.R. Bldg, Village Jonapur, New Delhi – 110 002 Mehraulli Delhi – 110 047 (Pan:Aaacu0224D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Sanjiv Rai Mehra, Ca Respondent By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30 .09.2025

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjiv Rai Mehra, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 56(2)(vvib)

satisfaction of the AO to substantiate the valuation of share at Rs. 40 each. Thus, the AO invoked the provision of Section 56(2)(viib) and added Rs. 2,63,73,189/- to the total income of the assessee. Against the above, assessee preferred the appeal before ... fair market value based on net asset value or discounted cash flow method be adopted to arrive at the conclusion of applying section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. In its paper book the appellant has annexed a purported valuation certification issued by one Sh. Sanjeev Rai Mehra, partner

Ideaforge Technology Ltd, Mahape vs. ACIT, Circle 15(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 867/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 867/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ideaforge Technology V/S. Assistant Commissioner Ltd. बिधम Of Income Tax, Circle El-146, Ttc Industrial 15(2)(1), Mumbai Area, Electronic Zone, Room No. 357, 3Rd Floor, Midc, Mahape, Navi Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Mumbai Karve Road, Mumbai 400020 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabci6495B Appellant/अपीलधथी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्धाररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi Shri. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (Sr Dr) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date Of Hearing 22.08.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 11.12.2024, Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “On The Facts & In Law, 1. The Hon. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Id Ao In Making Addition Of Rs. 6,60,02,100/- By Relying Upon The Provisions Of Section 56(2)(Viib) Of The It Act, 1961 On The Ground That The Consideration Received By The Appellant For Issue Of P A G E | 2

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viIb)Section 56(2)(viib)

upholding the action of the Id AO in making addition of Rs. 6,60,02,100/- by relying upon the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the IT Act, 1961 on the ground that the consideration received by the appellant for issue of P a g e | 2 ... making addition of Rs. 6,60,02,100/- under s. 56(2)(viib) of the IT Act, 1961, not appreciating that as per section 56(2)(viib) r.w. Rule 11UA(2)(b), the choice of adopting a valuation method lies with the assessee and not with

DCIT Circle-13(2), New Delhi vs. Jus Scriptum Magnus Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, we dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue

ITA 8259/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Pramod Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

selected for limited scrutiny under 2 CASS for the reason “Large share premium received during the year in order to verify applicability of section 56(2)(viib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). Accordingly, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served ... recent judgment, the Hon'ble ITAT after considering the facts, which is similar to that of appellant, has very clearly held that:- "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

Pranoo Financial Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 13(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4580/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi & Ms. Sruti KalyanikarFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

premium of INR.80/- per share. According to the Assessee the aforesaid premium was determined after taking into consideration the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act read with Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 [for short ‘IT Rules’]. As per Rule 11UA Fair Market Value ... share premium of INR.1,25,20,000/- [1,56,500 X INR.80 per share] in the hands of the Assessee as income under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved the Assessee preferred appeal which was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) by way of impugned order

Kbn Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1455/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankarkbn Infrastructure Private V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Limited बनाम 3(2)(3), Room No. 673A, 6Th B-426, Nbc Complex, Plot No. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 43, Sector-11, Cbd Belapur, Mumbai – 400020, Navi Mumbai - 400 614, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadck3271B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal,ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT-DR)
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 271DSection 68Section 69Section 69A

relevant year which was not declared as resultant capital gain/loss. The AO opined that the issue required examination in the light of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act and Rule 11UA to examine the correct and actual Fair Market Value of shares claimed to be sold. The assessee stated ... market value claiming that P a g e | 6 A.Y. 2018-19 KBN Infrastructure Private Limited provisions of section 56(2)(x) and section 56(2)(viib) were not attracted. 6. However, the ld.CIT(A) still found shortcomings in the reply inter alia holding that from perusal of the impugned

Income Tax Officer, New Delhi vs. Nine Plus Inftrastructure Private Limited, Gurgaon

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

ITA 4887/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Devatia, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tiwari, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

relief accorded is based upon correct interpretation and appreciation of facts of the case in the light of contemporaneous statutory prescription of section 56 (2)(viib) r.w.r. 11 UA of the Act as well as judicial precedents governing the subject. The Ld.Counsel also submitted that its case is squarely covered ... material available on records. The principal controversy seminal to the matter is regarding the action of the Ld.AO in invoking provisions of section 56 (2)(viib) and making the impugned addition by rejecting the valuation report produced by the assessee. It is pertinent to note that the appellant assessee

Mr. Vijay Bajirao Balwadkar, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 2(2) Pune, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 1637/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare
Section 14Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1637/PUN/2025

DCIT, CC-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Goldmine Commodities Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1260/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1260/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Goldmine Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, बनाम/ Goldmine House, V/S. Central Circle-1(4), 4, Niranjan-Nirakar Society, Ahmedabad. Near Shreyas Railway Crossing, Ambawadi Ahmedabad-380007. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaccg1295L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Kishor Goyal, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.04.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] For Assessment Year 2016-17. The Acit, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”], Dcit Vs. Goldmine Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Goyal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 56(2)(viib)

figures and therefore could not be relied upon for determining the fair market value of shares. 8. On these premises, the AO invoked section 56(2)(viib). The AO determined the excess over FMV at Rs. 109.70 per share and, applying it to 6,00,000 shares, quantified the addition ... No.1007/2019 and CM Appeal No. 54134/2019 [TS- 5099-HC-2021(Delhi)-O], stating that the AO could have determined FMV after invoking section 56(2)(viib) only by rejecting the valuer’s report based on one of the prescribed methods and conducting his own valuation; that “Courts have repeatedly held

Goldmine Commodities Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1194/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1194/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Goldmine Commodities Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Goldmine House, बनाम Of Income Tax-1 / 4, Niranjan-Nirakar Society, Ahmedabad. V/S. Near Shreyas Railway Crossing, (Earlier Know As Principal Ambawadi Commissioner Of Income Ahmedabad-380007. Tax-2, Ahmedabad) (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaccg1295L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor Goyal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Goyal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 56(2)(viib)

share. After considering submissions, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 6,58,62,000/- on account of share capital/share premium under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act and raised a demand of Rs. 2,89,54,211/-. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before

Luxeva India Private Limited, Maharashtra vs. NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is allowed with aforesaid consequences to follow

ITA 4495/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms Neha Vikram, CA &For Respondent: Ms Amisha s. Gupt, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

method. Thus the valuation certificate provided is not acceptable. 3. It is also to be noted that only specific exceptions as per Section 56(2)(viib) are: 1. Venture capital undertaking receiving consideration from venture capital company or fund. 2. Company from class/classes of persons as may be notified ... holding company which is a non-resident Indian. It is undisputed fact that the holding company shares has increased. On a reading of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, it becomes very much clear that it is applicable to resident investors and not to non-residents. Reliance

Income Tax Officer Ward- 11(3), New Delhi vs. Highrise Securities and Trading Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 30/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Ito, Vs Highrise Securities & Trading Ward-11(3), Pvt.Ltd., G-19, S/F, Room No.410A, Vijay Chokh, Near Tiwari C.R.Building, Complex, Laxmi Nagar, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110092. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aaach3402Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Sudesh Garg, Adv., Bhavya Garg, Adv. & Shri Shubham Sharma, Adv. Date Of Hearing 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2025

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

following DCF method in terms of the report of Merchant banker dt. 02.11.2018. While valuing the share, the explanation (a)(i) of section 56(2)(viib) was applied according to which the value has to be determined as per Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 which provide ... facts of the case. 7. Per contra, the ld. AR submits that the assessee has followed the due procedure as prescribed in section 56(2)(viib) of the Act according to which the fair market value of the shares was determined by following the method prescribed i.e. the DCF method

Avinash S Sadamate ACIT Circle 3 3 1, Mumbai vs. Ruchi Renewable Energy Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 620/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S.(Physical Hearing) Acit Circle – 3(3)(1), Mumbai Ruchi Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd.706, Room No. 522, Aayakarbhavan, Vs Tulsiani Chambers, Free Press Journal M K Road, Churchgate, Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai – 400021. [Pan: Aaecr1591A] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

Section 2Section 2(18)(b)Section 254(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

goodwill any other intangible hidden asset with the assessee-company. The assessing officer added the entire premium to the income of assessee under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has not examined the Discounted Cash Flow Method and simply deleted the addition by holding that ... that share premium received by assessee while allotting share to the investor company is unjustified and needs to be taxed as income under section 56(2)(viib). Though, the assessee valued the share as per DCF Method. The investor company being a public limited company, therefore, rigorous of section 56

Sharad Sevantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(3)(6), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4154/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri B. V. Jhaveri, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

consideration and the respite sought under the proviso cannot be granted. However if we go by the plain reading of the proviso to section 56(2)(viib) it is noticed that it mentions "agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable property" and therefore the claim

DCIT, Central Circle -20, Delhi vs. Aman Growth Fund Pvt Ltd, Delhi

Appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2418/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

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

following DCF method in terms of the report of the accountant. While valuing the share, the explanation (a)(i) of section 56(2)(viib) was applied according to which the value has to be determined as per Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 which provide the choosing ... share premium deserve to be restored. 7. Per contra, the ld. AR submits that the assessee has followed due procedure as prescribed in section 56(2)(viib) of the Act according to which the fair market of the shares was determined by following the method prescribed i.e. the DCF method

DCIT, Central Cercle-20, New Delhi vs. Nutan Growth Fund Pvt Ltd, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2417/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Dcit, Vs Nutan Growth Fund Pvt.Ltd., Central Circle-20, L-4, Green Park Extension, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 Pan-Aaacn0023H Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Pravin Rawal, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Ca & Ms. Meenal Goyal, Adv. & Ms. Vidhi Mangla, Adv. Date Of Hearing 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.08.2025

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

following DCF method in terms of the report of the accountant. While valuing the share, the explanation (a)(i) of section 56(2)(viib) was applied according to which the value has to be determined as per Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 which provide the choosing ... share premium deserves to be restored. 7. Per contra, the ld. AR submits that the assessee has followed due procedure as prescribed in section 56(2)(viib) of the Act according to which the fair market of the shares was determined by following the method prescribed i.e. the DCF method

Raajratna Energy Holdings Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

ITA 1185/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh Babu, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Swaroop Manava, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 14ASection 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

justify why the share premium received should not be taxed as income from other sources in view of the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. Assessee has failed to substantiate this claim. AO noted that as per the provisions of section 56(2)(viib ... under NAV. The difference amount of Rs.3,18,58,800/- was added as income from other sources as per the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18. Further for the Assessment Year 2018- 19, AO has disallowed short term capital loss

Raajratna Energy Holdings Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

ITA 1184/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh Babu, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Swaroop Manava, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 14ASection 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

justify why the share premium received should not be taxed as income from other sources in view of the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. Assessee has failed to substantiate this claim. AO noted that as per the provisions of section 56(2)(viib ... under NAV. The difference amount of Rs.3,18,58,800/- was added as income from other sources as per the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18. Further for the Assessment Year 2018- 19, AO has disallowed short term capital loss