INDIA TODAY ONLINE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 12(2), NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuita Nos. 6453 & 6454/Del/2018 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15

section 56(2)(viib) was there in the statute nor Rule 11U & 11UA was prescribed. Apart from that, assessee has given detailed submission as to why the value given by the independent valuer vide report dated 16.8.2012 and 27.12.2012. Further, the value of shares was also substantiated by the assessee based on various factors. Firstly, such valuation was supported

DCIT, FARIDABAD vs. SMT. MAMTA BHANDARI,, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

viib) to section 56(2) whereby in case of allotment of shares by any company, any amount, received by the company in excess of its fair market value of shares or its 16 ITA.No.5681/Del./2016 Smt. Mamta Bhandari, Delhi. face value was made taxable in the hands of the such company. Provision of section 56(2)(vii) are applicable

MEENU SATIJA,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri J. S. Reddy & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

viib) to section 56(2) whereby in case of allotment of shares by any company, any amount, received by the company in excess of its fair market value of shares or its face value was made taxable in the hands of the such company. Provision of section 56(2)(vii) are applicable on Individual and HUF whereas Provisions of 56

ITO WARD - 14(1), NEW DELHI vs. KV GLOBAL PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

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

SHIV KUMAR JATIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 10(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7256/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 241/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Shiv Kumar Jatia, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-50, Gulmohar Park, Ward-10(2), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpj7582K Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

viib) of sub-section (2) of section 56; (xvii) any sum of money referred to in clause (ix) of sub-section (2) of section 56; (xviia) any sum of money or value of property referred to in clause (x) of sub-section (2) of section 56; (xviib) any compensation or other payment referred to in clause (xi) of sub-section

SHIV KUMAR JATIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 10(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7256/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 241/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Shiv Kumar Jatia, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-50, Gulmohar Park, Ward-10(2), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpj7582K Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

viib) of sub-section (2) of section 56; (xvii) any sum of money referred to in clause (ix) of sub-section (2) of section 56; (xviia) any sum of money or value of property referred to in clause (x) of sub-section (2) of section 56; (xviib) any compensation or other payment referred to in clause (xi) of sub-section

CLEARVIEW HEALTHCARE P.LTD,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year : 2014-15

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act (legislative intent is to apply said provision where money received is not clean and is unaccounted money received in garb of share premium where as no where it is case of revenue that stated money is not clean money). It was further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming/sustaining the addition made

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CIRCLE-49(1), DELHI vs. BHARAT KALIA, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the appellant is allowed

56(2)(viib) of the Act whereas the provisions of Rule 11UA(1)(b) are applicable where the valuation is done for the purpose of section 50CA of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) has appreciated these facts and by accepting the valuation report of a CA, has deleted the additions made by making following observations:- 7. Decision “Although there

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