← 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)

Kangra Valley Garden Hotels Private Limited, Kangra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, Dharamshala

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by

ITA 602/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)
Section 127(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253

erred in making additions of share premium amount by ignoring that the same is not taxable in the hands of the appellant under section 56(2)(viib) read with section 5 and section 2(24)(xvi) of the Act. 7. The Ld. CIT(A)/Ld. AO have erred in levying

Kangra Valley Garden Hotels Private Limited, Kangra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, Dharamshala

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by

ITA 601/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)
Section 127(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253

erred in making additions of share premium amount by ignoring that the same is not taxable in the hands of the appellant under section 56(2)(viib) read with section 5 and section 2(24)(xvi) of the Act. 7. The Ld. CIT(A)/Ld. AO have erred in levying

Kangra Valley Garden Hotels Private Limited, Kangra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, Dharamshala

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by

ITA 600/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)
Section 127(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253

erred in making additions of share premium amount by ignoring that the same is not taxable in the hands of the appellant under section 56(2)(viib) read with section 5 and section 2(24)(xvi) of the Act. 7. The Ld. CIT(A)/Ld. AO have erred in levying

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad vs. Mytrah Vayu (Gujarat) Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal ofthe Revenue is dismissed

ITA 172/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri P S Choudhary, CIT. DRFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

Rs.10/- each at a premium of Rs.40/- on 31.03.2015. In the course of assessment, the AO examined the applicability of provision of Section 56(2)(viib)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) in respect of share premium collected by the assessee. The assessee had furnished ... this Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Ozone India Ltd., [2021] 126 taxmann.com 192 (Ahmedabad-ITAT) had analyzed the deeming provision of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act and observed that deeming clause requires to be given a schematic interpretation. According to the Ld. Counsel, the provision

Shaha Finlease Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax 13(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4182/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(1)(viib)Section 68

report. However, no efforts were made to justify the projection made in the said report under Rule 11UA and for premium as per Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. Mr. Sharma further submitted that the CIT(A) had concluded that no independent enquiry was done by the valuer ... valuation report and therefore the share premium received by the Respondent-Assessee is without any basis and contrary to provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) read with Section 2(24)(xvi) of the Act. Further, the AO held that the Respondent-Assessee has failed to submit any basis of projection

Income Tax Officer, Main Building vs. Priya Estate Developers Private Limited, Abhiramapuram, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1244/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1244/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ito M/S. Priya Estate Developers Private Ltd. बनाम/ Corporate Ward-5(2) #11, Bashyam Basheer Ahmed Road Vs. Chennai. Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Pan No. Aahcp-5405-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) – Ld. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) -Ld. Ar (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) -Ld. AR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

valuer on the date of valuation i.e. 27.07.2020. d. Sub-clause (2) of Clause A of Explanation to the second proviso to Section 56(2)(viib) clearly stipulates that the assessee should satisfy the AO about the basis for the valuation of the shares and this was clearly not done

Spl Infrastructure Pvt. Lt, Alwarpet, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai

ITA 325/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.325/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Spl Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 15, Kasturi Rangan Road, Corporate Circle – 6(1), Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [Pan: Aaics0881N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.03.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Raised 11 Grounds Of Appeal. The Ld. Ar Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate, Drew Our Attention To Ground No. 11 & Submits That This Matter Requires To Be Remanded To The File Of The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

only one issue of challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 4. We note that on an examination of the records during the course of assessment ... received share price over and above the face value of the shares and there is no exclusion clause for non- applicability of section 56(2)(viib) for receipts from family members. Therefore, the provision of section 56(2)(viib) is applicable in the instant case. Also, this section prescribes that

G S Farm Taaza Produce Private Limited., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (OSD), Range-3(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1255/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri BS Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V Parithivel, JCIT (DR)
Section 154Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

primary issue under appeal pertains to the CIT(A)’s affirmation of an addition of INR 3,04,42,500/- under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, relating to a share premium received by the appellant. 5.1 The appellant operates within the Agri-trade sector, primarily sourcing agricultural produce ... Based on these concerns, the AO rejected the DCF valuation in favor of the Net Asset Value (NAV) method, as prescribed under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act read with Rule 11UA of Income Tax Rules, ultimately assigning a nil fair market value to the shares and disallowing

Kolet Resort Club Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 812/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

issued shares at face value of Rs. 10/- per share and not at any premium rate and that therefore the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act are not attracted. 11. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that shares were not issued by the appellant ... viib) of the Act and rule 11UA does not arise. 12. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act are inapplicable for transactions between a holding company and its subsidiary company. 13. The appellant may add or alter

Parasmani Gems Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Cir-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2263/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2263/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) बनाम/ Parasmani Gems Pvt. Ltd. The D.C.I.T. 2, Supan Complex, Nr. Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. Dharnidhar Derasar, Paldi, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 380006 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcp6337M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul K Patel, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/10/2024 21/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 234ASection 56(2)(viib)

share only. The AO, therefore, required the assessee to justify the consideration for shares issued on 03.11.2012 in accordance with the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). It was explained that the shares allotted on 03.11.2012 were on the basis ... learned CIT (A) ought to have accepted the valuation done by appellant's C.A. and ought to have held that the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act are not applicable and the entire addition ought to have been deleted, as prayed for. (3) That on facts Commissioner

Max Hospitals and Allied Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai -3, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2907/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2018-19 Max Hospitals & Principal Allied Services Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor, Income Tax Mumbai- 3 Man Excellenza, Room No.612, Vs. S. V. Road, 6Th Floor, Vile Parle (W.), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400056 Maharishi Karve Road, Pan: Aagcr9198D Mumbai- 400020. Appellant : Respondent

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogia Nagpal (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(viib)

assessment proceedings and the learned Assessing Officer has accepted the valuation & allowed the same after making proper & specific enquiry with reference to Section 56(2)(viib) for valuation of shares. The assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer after due application of mind and after making due investigation / enquiries ... 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Amar Prakash Developers Private Limited, Chrompet, Chennai

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

ITA 577/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.577/Chny/2024 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Amar Prakash Developers Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1), Vs. Pvt. Ltd, Chennai No.314, Pattamal Complex, G.S.T.Road, Chrompet, Tamil Nadu-600 044. [Pan: Aahca6244J]

For Respondent: Shri V.Nandakumar, CIT
Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Lalitha Jewelly Mart Pvt. Ltd in ITA Nos. 663, 664, 665/Chny/2019 has, examining applicability of section 56(2)(viib), held that “if the assessing officer is not satisfied about the valuation, he has to call for material from the assesse ... take into consideration the well established method of valuation of shares including the asset as explained in Explanation-2 to section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. It cannot be arbitrary…”. Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in their decision in the case of Agro Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. 94 Taxman.112 have held

People Care Hospitals Private Limited, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 100/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 People Care Hospitals Private Vs Ito Limited, Plot No.1066, Baba Ward- 2 (1) Nagar, Near Janta Barat Ghar, Faridabad Old Faridabad, Haryana 121002 Pan No.Aagcp8745G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Geranium Barkers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito 103/B, Near Shyamji Mandir Ward-1 (3) Malerna Road, Adarsh Nagar, Faridabad Ballabgarh Haryana -122004 Pan No.Aafcg3396P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Riven Health Club Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Ff-9, Vishnu Place Near Ward- 2 (2) Neelam Flyover Sector-20B Faridabad Faridabad Haryana121001 Pan No. Aagcr1343A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Advocate Ms. Sumangla Saxena, Advocate Sh. Dishant Sethi, Advocate

Section 131oSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

income of appellant u/s 251(1) by a sum of Rs. 71,25,000/-under the head income from other sources by applying section 56(2)(viib) of the Act on protective basis and rejecting the valuation report furnished under Rule 11UA(2)(b) of Income Tax Rules ... there were nothing brought on record contrary to the documents brought to the record by the assesses. 13. Further, on a reading of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act ,it becomes clear that fair market value of shares as on date of sale has to be determined by applying

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Aadhar Wholesale Trading and Distribution Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2649/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Asst. Cit Aadhaar Wholesale Trading & Room No. 533, Aayakar Bhawan, Distribution Ltd. Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Knowledge House Shyam Nagar, Vs. J V Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), S.O., Mumbai-400 060 Pan/Gir No. Aafca 8793 G (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mani & Prateek Jain Respondent By : Shri Ram Krishn Kedia Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2024

For Appellant: Shri Mani & Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia
Section 143(3)Section 2(18)Section 2(18)(b)Section 56(2)(viib)

premium charged being in excess of the fair market value, the same was liable to be added as ‘income from other sources’ invoking section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. The section 56(2)(viib) specify that when a company , not being a company in which the public ... definition of ‘company in which the public is substantially interested’ provided in section 2(18) of the Act and hence provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act are not applicable over the assessee. The assessee particularly referred to the definition of ‘Company in which public are substantially interested

Gujarat Farm Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Anand

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

ITA 431/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 431/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2014-15)

For Appellant: Vora, A.RsFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)Section 56(2)(vilib)

have carefully considered the rival submissions. The issue involved in this case is determining the FMV of the shares as per provision of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act r.w. Rule 11U & 11UA of the IT Rules. As per Rule 11UA, an option is given to the assessee

Clonz Biotech Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 636/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2017-18 Clonz Biotech Private Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcc7742B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Srikanth Reddy, Y. Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.11.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Srikanth Reddy, Y. Sr.AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

assessment and appeal. 5. The Assessing Officer misguided himself in calculating fair value due to a non-constructive reading of the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) along with Rule 11UA.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nungambakkam vs. R K M Powergen Private Limited, T Nagar

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the

ITA 800/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri. A. Sasikumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. V. Ravichandran, CA
Section 56(1)

extended these deeming provisions to companies also. Thus, there is no case u/s 56 (2)(ii)/ (x) for the impugned AYs. 7.5.21 Whether section 56(2)(viib) would apply to the premium transaction? This section applies only where the shareholder is a resident and does not apply to the premium ... amount of share capital received from the various shareholders cannot be treated as business income. The Assessing Officer also was aware that Section 56(2)(viib) had no application on share premia received from non-residents. It is only proposed in Finance Bill 2023 to extend Section 56(2)(viib

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. R K M Powergen Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the

ITA 799/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri. A. Sasikumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. V. Ravichandran, CA
Section 56(1)

extended these deeming provisions to companies also. Thus, there is no case u/s 56 (2)(ii)/ (x) for the impugned AYs. 7.5.21 Whether section 56(2)(viib) would apply to the premium transaction? This section applies only where the shareholder is a resident and does not apply to the premium ... amount of share capital received from the various shareholders cannot be treated as business income. The Assessing Officer also was aware that Section 56(2)(viib) had no application on share premia received from non-residents. It is only proposed in Finance Bill 2023 to extend Section 56(2)(viib

Riven Health Club Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ITO Ward-2(2), Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 103/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 People Care Hospitals Private Vs Ito Limited, Plot No.1066, Baba Ward- 2 (1) Nagar, Near Janta Barat Ghar, Faridabad Old Faridabad, Haryana 121002 Pan No.Aagcp8745G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Geranium Barkers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito 103/B, Near Shyamji Mandir Ward-1 (3) Malerna Road, Adarsh Nagar, Faridabad Ballabgarh Haryana -122004 Pan No.Aafcg3396P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Riven Health Club Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Ff-9, Vishnu Place Near Ward- 2 (2) Neelam Flyover Sector-20B Faridabad Faridabad Haryana121001 Pan No. Aagcr1343A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Advocate Ms. Sumangla Saxena, Advocate Sh. Dishant Sethi, Advocate

Section 131oSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

income of appellant u/s 251(1) by a sum of Rs. 71,25,000/-under the head income from other sources by applying section 56(2)(viib) of the Act on protective basis and rejecting the valuation report furnished under Rule 11UA(2)(b) of Income Tax Rules ... there were nothing brought on record contrary to the documents brought to the record by the assesses. 13. Further, on a reading of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act ,it becomes clear that fair market value of shares as on date of sale has to be determined by applying

Geranium Bakers Private Lmited, Ballabhgarh vs. ITO Ward-1(3), Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 102/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 People Care Hospitals Private Vs Ito Limited, Plot No.1066, Baba Ward- 2 (1) Nagar, Near Janta Barat Ghar, Faridabad Old Faridabad, Haryana 121002 Pan No.Aagcp8745G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Geranium Barkers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito 103/B, Near Shyamji Mandir Ward-1 (3) Malerna Road, Adarsh Nagar, Faridabad Ballabgarh Haryana -122004 Pan No.Aafcg3396P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Riven Health Club Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Ff-9, Vishnu Place Near Ward- 2 (2) Neelam Flyover Sector-20B Faridabad Faridabad Haryana121001 Pan No. Aagcr1343A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Advocate Ms. Sumangla Saxena, Advocate Sh. Dishant Sethi, Advocate

Section 131oSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

income of appellant u/s 251(1) by a sum of Rs. 71,25,000/-under the head income from other sources by applying section 56(2)(viib) of the Act on protective basis and rejecting the valuation report furnished under Rule 11UA(2)(b) of Income Tax Rules ... there were nothing brought on record contrary to the documents brought to the record by the assesses. 13. Further, on a reading of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act ,it becomes clear that fair market value of shares as on date of sale has to be determined by applying