ITO WARD - 24(1), NEW DELHI vs. SOLITAIRE BTN SOLAR PVT LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 56(2)(viib) is to prevent unlawful gains by issuing company in the garb of capital receipts. In the instant

ACIT CIRCLE-7(2), NEW DELHI vs. DHRUV MILKOSE PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 56(2)(viib) is to prevent unlawful gains by issuing company in the garb of capital receipts. In the instant

A B PROPMART PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 1(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] A B Propmart Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, Punjabi Bhawan, 10 Ward-1(1), Rouse Avenue, Delhi-110002. Delhi Pan-Aagca7340G Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Chandan Agarwal, Ca & Shri Ajay Marwah, Ca Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15.10.2025 Order

Section 56(2)(viib) is to prevent unlawful gains by issuing company in the garb of capital receipts. In the instant

BLP VAYU (PROJECT-1) P.LTD,GURGAON vs. PR.CIT , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 56(2)(viib) is to prevent unlawful gains by issuing company in the garb of capital receipts. In the instant

RUGBY REGENCY P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-21, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 M/S. Rugby Regency P. Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, 37-Ring Road, Range-21, Lajpat Nagar-Iv, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 024 Pan Aagcr5908K (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act is to prevent unlawful gain by issuing company in the garb of capital

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

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 provides that the valuation has to be done as per the prescribed method and if one of the prescribed methods has been adopted by the assessee, then Assessing Officer 5 has to accept

CLEARMEDI HEALTHCARE PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 6(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed for

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

56(2) (viib) we refer to para 3 &5 of said order); notably seller of shares shashi baliyan (director of instant company) is assessed in India qua capital gains arising from said share sale @ 380.53 per shares.” 8. Per contra, Ld. DR has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 9. The Tribunal in ITA No.2222/Del/2019, for Assessment Year

BIGSTAR HOTELS RESORTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 5(1), NEW DELHI

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

sections": [ "250", "143(3)", "144B", "50CA", "11UA", "11UAA", "56(2)(viib)", "234A", "234B" ], "issues": "Whether the Assessing Officer correctly determined the Fair Market Value (FMV) of unquoted shares for capital gains

ARAFAATH EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD- 1(1), MEERUT

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Arafaath Exports Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito, C/O Vinod Kumar Goel, Ward-1(1), 282, Boundry Road, Meerut. Civil Lines, Meerut. Pan: Aaica3838R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinod Kumar Goel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .05.2024

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act is to prevent unlawful gain by issuing company in the garb of capital

AROON PURIE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

viib) and (ix) of sub-section (2) to Section 56 are income. Thus, certain categories of gifts are treated as income, but all gifts are not treated as income. The non- specified gifts are not income, being capital in nature. 2015:DHC:2990-DB ITA No.232/2002 Page 10 of 33 12. Sub-section (24) to Section 2, therefore, adopts

AMBARNUJ FINANCE & INVESTMENTS PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, DELHI

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareeka.Yr. : 2018-19 Ambarnuj Finance & Investments Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-26, Ltd, New Delhi Shop 243, North Ex Mall, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi – 85 (Pan: Aaaca5799F) (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital alongwith premium from the related parties. It was seen that 6,17,777 shares were sold to the related parties at Rs. 27 per share i.e. face value of Rs. 10/- and premium of Rs. 17/- per share. A valuation certificate under Rule 11UA of the I.T. Act, 1961 was also submitted by the appellant wherein the value

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURGAON vs. APCA POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

capital and share premium have been received by the assessee company from a person, Sh. Vivek Chaudhri, who was not a resident in India.” 3. In this case, the assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) by the AO on 04.12.2017, wherein, the addition of Rs.2,98,43,600/- was made. Thereafter, an order u/s 154 was passed

APCA POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

capital and share premium have been received by the assessee company from a person, Sh. Vivek Chaudhri, who was not a resident in India.” 3. In this case, the assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) by the AO on 04.12.2017, wherein, the addition of Rs.2,98,43,600/- was made. Thereafter, an order u/s 154 was passed

REFIRAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURGAON

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 8306/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Refiral Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, House No. 1789, Third Floor, Sector- Ward-3(5), 46, Gurgaon-122002 Gurgaon-1220088 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcr0604D Assessee By: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.01.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A), Kolkata’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1081746005(1) Dated 14.10.2025, In Proceedings U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

56(2)(viib) of the I.T. Act (prevalent during that year) is reproduced: “where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year, from any person being a resident, any consideration for issue of shares that exceeds the face value of such shares, the aggregate consideration received for such shares

ACE CABS LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), DELHI, C R BUILDING

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanace Cabs Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1 (2), 562, Silver Oak Lane, Delhi. M.G. Road, Ghitorni, Delhi – 110 030. (Pan : Aaica4494R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate Ms. Bharti Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 12.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Submitted An Application Under Rule 29 Of The Itat Rules For Admitting The Additional Evidences & The Contents Thereof Are Reproduced Below:-

56(2)(viib) of the Act specifically for the allotment of SEED Compulsory Convertible Preference Shares (CCPS). 8. In order to verify the share allotment to the directors and investors, the assessee was asked to furnish the PAN details, current address, financial statements, ledger account, ITR, and bank statements of M/s Click Cab Technology LLP to examine the share premium

M/S STANCE CONSUMER ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-32, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.2791 & 2792/Del/2025 (Assessment Yearss 2016-17 & 2017-18)

viib) to sub-section (2) to section 56 of the Act no addition could be made. 19. Once it is admitted that the said sum of Rs. 1.50 crores was the consideration received by the assessee from the sale of shares owned by it, no addition could be made u/s 68 of the Act by treating the same unexplained credit

M/S STANCE CONSUMER ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-32, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.2791 & 2792/Del/2025 (Assessment Yearss 2016-17 & 2017-18)

viib) to sub-section (2) to section 56 of the Act no addition could be made. 19. Once it is admitted that the said sum of Rs. 1.50 crores was the consideration received by the assessee from the sale of shares owned by it, no addition could be made u/s 68 of the Act by treating the same unexplained credit

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI vs. ENRICH AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Vs Enrich Agro Food Products Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-15, B-1643, Pocket 1, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. Pan: Aaace0807C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.K. Aggarwal, Ar & Ms Shweta Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23Rd August, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-26, New Delhi, For Ay 2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Company Is One Of The Group Companies Of Kandhari Group & Is Engaged In The Business Of Preparation, Manufacturing, Packing & Sale Of Soft Drinks On The Basis Of Concentrate & Other Raw Material Procured From Coca Cola In The Capacity Of Bottler & Distributor Of Coca Cola Products In India. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 28.11.2015 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.14,81,76,850/-. A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The It Act Was Carried Out On 28Th March, 2015 In The Case Of M.M Aggarwal Group Of Cases. The Case Of The Assessee Was Also Covered In The Search U/S 132(1) Of The It Act. During The Course Of Search Carried Out At Different Premises Of M.M. Aggarwal Group, Documents, Data Storage Devices, Etc. Belonging To The Assessee Were Found & Seized. 2.1. The A.O. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings Noted That The Assessee Company Has Received Share Capital & Share Premium Of Rs.4,87,99,855/- Including Share Premium Of Rs.4,61,62,025/- On Account Of Issue Of 263783 Equity Shares Of Rs.10/- Each At A Premium Of Rs.175/-.

section 68 like — credit worthiness, identities and genuineness of transaction. Further AO has made such addition stating that the income declared by the investor companies over the years is negligible. The bank statements of the investor filed by the Ld. AR clearly indicates the availability of funds in his hands. The observation of the AO is against the material