← 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)

Nepra Environmental Solutins Private Limited, Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1683/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1683/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2013-14 | Nepra Environmental- Solutions Private Limited 705, Sharan Circle Hub Nr. Sharan Homes, Zundal Gandhinagar 382 421 (Gujarat) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaccp 0273 F (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Assessee By: Revenue By: | The Income Tax Officer बनाम / | Ward-3(1)(1) V/S. Ahmedabad (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Shri Divyakant Parikh, Ar Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2025 25/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)"], Dated 07-08-2024, For The

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: The Income Tax Officer
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

under section 68 of the Act in respect of share application money received. (iii) Alternative addition of Rs.70,99,350/- under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act on account of excessive share premium. Facts of the Case: 3. The assessee-company was incorporated for providing website designing and software ... method of share valuation adopted by the assessee and applied the NAV method, leading to an alternative addition of Rs.70,99,350/- under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. The AO also disallowed Rs.1,97,068/- claimed as expenses, stating that since no business operations were carried