← 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)

Sabarmati Capital One Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Ward-14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3633/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Fereshte Sethna – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23(4)Section 23(5)Section 24Section 263

substance of the grievance is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the addition made as per the provision of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act is beyond the jurisdiction of the AO when the ld. Pr. CIT has cancelled the original assessment order with a direction

Skyscraper Realbuild Pvt. Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2174/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2174/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Skyscraper Realbuild Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ First Floor, 115, Ward-1(1)(1) V/S. Satyamev Aawas, Ahmedabad Coconut, Kudasan, Gandhinagar-382421. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaica8859J अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr-DR
Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [CIT(A)], dated 15.10.2024, confirming the addition of Rs. 1,26,40,000/- made under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] for the Assessment Year 2014-15. ITA No.2174/Ahd/2024. Skyscraper Realbuild ... share and held that the premium received in excess of FMV was taxable as income from other sources under Section 56(2)(viib). 3. The CIT(A), in its order dated 15.10.2024, confirmed the addition without independently examining the assessee’s contentions and merely relied on the findings

Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune

ITA 1178/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Gateway Office Parks Priovate Limitedi, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Cicle-6(1), Chennai

ITA 617/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.617/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2015-16 Gateway Office Parks Private Limited, Block No.A6, Ground Floor, No.16, Gst Road, Perungalathur, Chennai-600 063. [Pan: Aajcs8198P] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-6(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri S.Ananthan, Advocate (Virtual). Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit 22.01.2025 19.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/M/250/2022-23/1050825008(1) Dated 16.03.2023 For The Assessment Years 2015-16. Through The Aforesaid Appeal The Assesse Has Challenged Order U/S 250 Dated 16.03.2023 Passed By Cit(A), Chennai. 2.0 Ground Of Appeal No.1 Has Been Found To Be General In Nature & Hence Not Worthy Of Any Meritorious Adjudication.

Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

ground of appeal No.2 is regarding an addition of Rs.11,67,14,298/- made by the Ld. AO invoking provisions of section 56(2)(viib). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee inviting our attention to the brief factual matrix of the case informed that the assessee company engaged in real ... No.617/Chny/2024 residents, the assessee was bound to follow the DCF method. The Ld. Counsel also submitted that the CBDT circular prescribes that section 56(2)(viib) is not applicable in case of applicability of issue of rights share. The Ld. DR would like to make us believe on the correctness

Eltek Sgs Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 5531/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. I.P. Constructions Private Vs. Acit, Limited, 210 First Floor, Phool Circle-12(2), Singh Market Main, Delhi Vikas Marg, New Delhi Pin 1100 92 Pan No. Aabci4548K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Chandra Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56(2)(viib)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR

M/S. Radhika Commercial Pvt. Ltd., 24-Parganas North vs. I.T.O., Ward - 14(3), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1307/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Your Honours That In The Present Case, The Appellate Order Is Dated 24.11.2023. Accordingly, The Last Date To File The Appeal Was 23.01.2024. As Such There Is A Delay Of 141 Days In Filing The Appeal. Regarding Delay In Filing Of Appeal, It Is Submitted That The Hearing Notices Dated 21.09.2023, 18.10.2023 & 06.11.2023 Were Sent At Incorrect Email Ids Ie. Aabcr2237H@Gmail.Com Sdacasit@Gmail.Com Whereas The Correct Email Id Was It.Vkma@Gmail.Com Which Was Duly Mentioned In The Returns Of Income & At

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH” KOLKATA SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. Soudamini Investments Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal ITA No

ITA 1453/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: ITAT, Kolkata were collected and prepared. 2nd Appeal was e-filed

Section 148Section 148ASection 250

stated that the Ld. AO had misdirected himself in relying too much on part (ii) to Explanation 2 to section 56(2)(viib) of the Act in stating that the valuation method adopted by the assessee was not to his satisfaction. The Ld. AR stated that

M/S Shiv Balaji Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Etawah vs. ITO.-2(2)(5), Etawah

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

ITA 141/AGR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S Shiv Balaji Cold Storage Vs. The Ito (P) Ltd., Ward-2(2)(5), Jaswant Nagar, Etawah Etawah-206245 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aapcs8415B Assessee By : Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv Revenue By: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2025

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH “DB”: AGRA SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT

Dreams Dwellers LLP(As Legal Representative of Megacorp Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT -24(1) (Earlier ACIT Cir 10(1)(1), Mumbai)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4937/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dreams Dwellers Llp (As Legal Acit-24(1) (Earlier Acit Cir 10(1)(1) Representative Of Megacorp Mumbai), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai) Room No. 604, 6Th Floor, Piramal 702, Natraj, Mv Road, Junction W E Chambers Parel, Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400069. Pan No. Aafcm 0366 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

made 30.12.2016 wherein addition was made under the head ‘income under the head ‘income from other sources’ in from other sources’ invoking section 56(2)(viib) of the Act 56(2)(viib) of the Act for alleged share premium amount received in excess of fair market value. share premium amount ... such shares, payment method, transfer description and terms of redemptions etc. transfer description and terms of redemptions etc. T The provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act gets attracted when a unlisted section 56(2)(viib) of the Act gets attracted when section 56(2)(viib

M/S Unihealth Consultancy Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, 8 (3) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4387/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Unihealth Consultancy Ltd., The Dy. Cit-8(3)(1), H-13 & H-14 Everest, 9Th Floor, Room No. 615, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Tardeo Road, Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400034. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabcu 1551 C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kalyani/ Ajay Dhoot
Section 143(3)Section 68

during the of which were duly demonstrated by the appellant during the course of proceedings course of proceedings WITHOUT PREJUDICE WITHOUT PREJUDICE 2. Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 2. Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 a) On the fact ... taxpayer-company and made addition under section 56(2) company and made addition under section 56(2) company and made addition under section 56(2) (viib) of the IT Act, based on the NAV method. In the facts of (viib) of the IT Act, based on the NAV method

Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5(3)(1), Mumbai vs. White Owlbrewery Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 4167/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Gaikwad
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

been certified that the assessee is a recognized start up as per DPIIT. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the addition under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act in the case of the assessee was made vide an assessment order dated 27.12.2019, prior to the issuance ... aforementioned CBDT notification and hence the exemption under section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act is not available to the assessee for the 2017-18 under consideration. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not considering that

Holiday Triangle Travel Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 67/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Shivpuri, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) has erred in conferring the addition of INR 5,289.920 made by ld. AO under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 2 Holiday Triangle Travel Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case ... grossly erred in conferring the additionof INR 5,289.920 on account of addition of share premium received on sale of shares under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act without appreciating facts and law, inter alia as under : 4.1 That section 56(2)(viib) of the Act is not applicable

Canpac Trends Pvt. Ltd., Bavla vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 271/AHD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.271/Ahd/2021 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2017-18 Canpac Trends Pvt.Ltd. Plot No.338, Chiyada Village : Chiyada B/H. Jerala Gidc Ahmedabad – 382 220 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabcv 9858 M बनाम / V/S. The Acit Circle-1(1)(2) Ahmedabad (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By : -None- Revenue By : Dr. Sanjay Lal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: : 16/01/2025 20/01/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed 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 25/08/2021, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao"], Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"], For The Assessment Year 2017-18.

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Dr. Sanjay Lal, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

disallowed the claim, citing the provisions of Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va). (ii) Addition under Section 56(2)(viib): • The assessee issued 7,85,000 shares at a face value of Rs.10/-, charging premiums ranging from Rs.127/- to Rs.275/- per share. • The fair market value ... independent Chartered Accountant. • The AO noted that shares were issued at a premium exceeding FMV to certain shareholders, resulting in taxable income under Section 56(2)(viib). The AO calculated the taxable excess premium as follows: Name of Shareholder Date of Allotment No. of Shares Issue Price (Rs.) Excess Amount

Mr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 22(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3493/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarvs. Dcit, Circle – 22(1) Mr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol Piramal Chamber, 1, Neumec Height, Sant Lalbaug, Mumbai – Chokha Mela Road, Vile 400012. Parle (E), Mumbai – 400057. Pan/Gir No. Aabpa2313B (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

Atul Mardia (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 46(4), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

ITA 1420/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Knowlarity Communications India Vs Acit, Private Ltd., Circle 14(2), Awfis, 7Th Floor, Delhi. Ambience Mall, Nh-8, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 002. Pan : Aafck1875R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Shri Shivam Yadav, Shri Sumit Lalchandani & Ms Ananya Kapoor, Advocates Revenue By : Ms Rajinder Kaur, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Salil KapoorFor Respondent: Ms Rajinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 250Section 37Section 68

provided by the assessee which shows that the assessee was questioned specifically with regard to examining the receipt for the purpose of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act and the assessee was directed to provide complete valuation report of the shares, source of such funds along with confirmations, source ... Sequoia and invested by holding company was also provided to AO vide submissions dated 10.12.2019. It was also specifically stated that provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act are not applicable as the consideration is received from a non-resident. 7 10. Thus, very apparently, at the first

Krishan Dev Verma, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward - 1, Bhiwani

ITA 1147/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 14Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 238Section 30(4)Section 31

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV

Patel Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 22/JODH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

noted earlier there was no business activity during the year as per submission filed, assessee was asked to justify the premium as per section 56(2)(viib) of the Act and rule 11UA of I.T. Rules. Ld. AR submitted share valuation report which was not as per rule 11UA ... shares has been determined under various methods of valuation including discounted cash flow method. However as per explanation given under provision of section 56(2)(viib) of the I. T. Act, the fair market value of the shares shall be the value as may be determined in accordance with rule

People Care Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Faridabad

ITA 6178/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S People Care Hospitals Pvt. Vs Ito, Ltd., Ward-2(1), Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Faridabad. Near Neelam Flyover, Sector-20B, Faridabad. Pan: Aagcp8745G Assessment Year: 2015-16 Potent Foods Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Ward-2(1), Near Neelam Flyover, Faridabad Sector-20B, Faridabad. Pan: Aagcp6222N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Saxena, Advocate; Shri Dishant Sethi, Advocate; & Ms Sumangla Saxena, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.12.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: Heard & Perused The Records. The Two Appeals Have Common Investors Whose Investments Have Been Doubted By The Ld, Tax Authorities Below. The Ld. Representatives Of Both The Sides Have Argued Citing Facts Of Ita

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Saxena, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

enhanced the income of the appellant by Rs. 70,87,500/- u/s 251(1) of the Act by invoking provisions of section 56(2) (viib) of the Act. 11. Hence, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising following grounds: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred ... facts in enhancing the income of appellant assessee by sum of Rs. 70,87,500/- u/s 251(1) of the Act by invoking section 56(2)(viib) of the Act wherein rejecting the valuation method taken by appellant assessee. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well

Autope Payment Solutions Private Limited, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Delhi

In the result, ground nos

ITA 86/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar Nayyar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)

shares of the assessee at Rs. 15.31 per share. Accordingly, he disallowed Rs. 90,22,347/- as differential amount as per provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) and further he proceeded to make addition of share application money of Rs. 1,82,360/- u/s 68 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved

Paramsukh Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 7(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1883/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

erred in doubting the value of share premium amount determined by the assessee company for issue of shares when neither the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) came into force from the assessment year under consideration nor the source of source as required under the amended provisions of section