BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

143 results for “section 68”+ Section 56(2)(viib)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai156Delhi143Kolkata46Jaipur19Bangalore19Chandigarh18Hyderabad11Chennai10Ahmedabad9Raipur8Indore6Visakhapatnam5Nagpur5Cuttack4Pune4Surat4Rajkot3Jodhpur3Amritsar2Dehradun2Lucknow1Calcutta1Cochin1Allahabad1SC1

Key Topics

Section 68148Section 143(3)116Section 56(2)(viib)113Addition to Income88Section 251(1)37Section 14735Section 271(1)(c)27Section 143(2)23Section 26322Penalty

DCIT, CC-31, NEW DELHI vs. REALTIME MARKETING PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the addition made u/s 68 and u/s 56(2)(viib) in the case of M/s Realtime Marketing Pvt

ITA 1839/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

section 56(2)(viib) read with Rule 11UA. Whereas the Assessing Officer has substituted fair market value determined by the assessee through his own valuation. 13. While dealing with an identical issue, the Coordinate Bench in case of M/s. Dayalu Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held as under: "12. The Ld. A.O while making an addition u/s 68

Showing 1–20 of 143 · Page 1 of 8

...
19
Disallowance13
Limitation/Time-bar12

ENN VEE HOLDINGS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 31, NEW DELHI

In the result, the addition made u/s 68 and u/s 56(2)(viib) in the case of M/s Realtime Marketing Pvt

ITA 1195/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

section 56(2)(viib) read with Rule 11UA. Whereas the Assessing Officer has substituted fair market value determined by the assessee through his own valuation. 13. While dealing with an identical issue, the Coordinate Bench in case of M/s. Dayalu Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held as under: "12. The Ld. A.O while making an addition u/s 68

POTENT FOODS PRIVATE LIMTED,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD-2(1), FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 104/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Shyam SunderFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 68

viib) of sub-section (2) of section 56 shall be determined under clause (a) or clause (b), at the option of the assessee. It is his submission that the assessee in the instant case has issued the share capital @ Rs.80 per share (face value of Rs.10 per share + premium at Rs.70 per share

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

ITA 6454/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

68,124)/10000 = -89336 per share 14. In view of above, it is clear that during AY 2013-14, shares were issued at a price more than FMV of shares of the assessee company. Thus, the provisions of section 56(2)(viib

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

ITA 6453/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

68,124)/10000 = -89336 per share 14. In view of above, it is clear that during AY 2013-14, shares were issued at a price more than FMV of shares of the assessee company. Thus, the provisions of section 56(2)(viib

STRYTON EXIM INDIA P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-24(2), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5982/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishisa No. 665/Del/2018 (In Ita No. 5982/Del/2018) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Stryton Exim India Pvt Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O. R Khare & Associates, Ward-24(2), 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaics0797B (Appellant) (Respondent) Stryton Exim India Pvt Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O. R Khare & Associates, Ward-24(2), 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaics0797B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Khare, AdvFor Respondent: Shri K Tewari, Sr. DR
Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

68 of the IT Act on substantive basis ITA No 5982 Del 2018 AY 2014 15 Strton Exim P Ltd Alongwith stay 665 Del 2018 14 and Rs.19,90,00,000/- as per provisions of section 56(2)(viib

DCIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI vs. KISSANDHAN AGRI FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8734/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Atul Ninawat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

Section 56(2)(viib) by holding that addition with respect to change in the method of valuation is not accordance with law. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer has rightly rejected the DCF methodology adopted by the appellant company for the purpose of arriving at the FMV of equity

GOPESH FABRICS PVT. LTD.,BALLABHGARH vs. ITO WARD-1(3) , FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

ITA 98/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

Section 143(1)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 52(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

section 56(2)(viib) of the Acton protective basis and rejecting the valuation report furnished under Rule 11UA(2)(b) of Income Tax Rules, 1962 i.e., Discounted Cash Flow Method. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on facts in sustaining addition u/s 68

VIDHI CINEMAS PVT.LTD.,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-2(5), FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

ITA 88/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

Section 143(1)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 52(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

section 56(2)(viib) of the Acton protective basis and rejecting the valuation report furnished under Rule 11UA(2)(b) of Income Tax Rules, 1962 i.e., Discounted Cash Flow Method. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on facts in sustaining addition u/s 68

ZHILMIL ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-2(5), FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

ITA 87/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

Section 143(1)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 52(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

section 56(2)(viib) of the Acton protective basis and rejecting the valuation report furnished under Rule 11UA(2)(b) of Income Tax Rules, 1962 i.e., Discounted Cash Flow Method. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on facts in sustaining addition u/s 68

SHANTA BLANKETS PVT. LTD.,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-2(3) , FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

ITA 84/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

Section 143(1)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 52(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

section 56(2)(viib) of the Acton protective basis and rejecting the valuation report furnished under Rule 11UA(2)(b) of Income Tax Rules, 1962 i.e., Discounted Cash Flow Method. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on facts in sustaining addition u/s 68

PINGASH MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,BALLABHGARH vs. ITO WARD-2(1), FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

ITA 99/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

Section 143(1)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 52(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

section 56(2)(viib) of the Acton protective basis and rejecting the valuation report furnished under Rule 11UA(2)(b) of Income Tax Rules, 1962 i.e., Discounted Cash Flow Method. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on facts in sustaining addition u/s 68

ITO WARD - 23(1), NEW DELHI vs. SHRADHA MH ONE TV NETWORK PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 960/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh Vinod Kumar Bindal, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

section 56(2)(viib) was introduced from AY 2013-14, the said provision cannot be applied merely on the basis that the shares were allotted in the AY 2013-14. 5.6. The appellant further submitted that the valuation of shares made on the basis of discounted cash flow method prepared by experts cannot be disregarded or brushed aside

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8689/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Delhi13 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Khare, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Kranti E. Khobragade, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

56(2)(viib) on account of excess share premium recorded by the assessee. 2. Whether in the circumstances of the case and law, the ld. CIT(A) I.T.A. No.8689/Del/2019 2 is correct in deleting the addition of Rs.77,20,700/- made by the ld. AO under Section 68

BIGFOOT RETAIL SOLUTION PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 5(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3161/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajinder Jha, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

viib) of section 56(2) of the Act. 5.2 The Ld. CIT(A) referred to the decision of Kerala High Court in Sunrise Academy of Medical Specialities (India) (P) Ltd. This decision is rendered in the context of first proviso to section 68

BRASH STEELS PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD - 1(2), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 6181/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S Brash Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Near Ward-1(2), Neelam Flyover, Sector-20B, Faridabad, Faridabad, Haryana-121002 Haryana-121002 Pan-Aafcb0204R

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Farat Khan, Sr. DR
Section 11USection 133(6)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

68 of the Act, no separate addition is being made u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act. While holding so, he rejected the calculation made by the assessee in terms of section

MANTRAM COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD-1(5), FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 105/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Shyam SunderFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 56Section 68

viib) of sub-section (2) of section 56 shall be determined under clause (a) or clause (b), at the option of the assessee. It is his submission that the assessee in the instant case has issued the share capital @ Rs.80 per share (face value of Rs.10 per share + premium at 26 ITA.No.105/Del./2021 M/s. Mantram Commodities

MANTRAM COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD 1(5), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessees is allowed

ITA 6170/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2015-16 Mantram Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito, Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Ward 1(5), Near Neelam Flyover, Faridabad. Sector-20B, Faridabad. Pan: Aahcm9517C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Saxena, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rovin Rawal, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Orders Dated 29Th March, 2019 Of The Cit(A), Faridabad, Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Has Not Conducted Any Business Activity During The Relevant Assessment Year. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 10Th September, 2015 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.1,64,750/-. The Ao, During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Noted That The Assessee Company Has Received Rs.42 Lakhs As Share Premium During The Year On Issue Of 60000 Shares At A Premium Of Rs.70/-. He Noticed That The Shares Have Been Allotted On 31St March, 2015 To The Following Companies/Persons:- Name Of Person, No. Of Nominal Premium Amount Of Total Amt. Paid Shares Value Per Per Premium(Rs.) Including Share(Rs.) Share(Rs.) Premium(Rs.) Gangashiv 33125 10 70 2318750 2650000 Contractors Pvt. Ltd. 26875 10 70 1881250 2150000 Amar Shree Industries Pvt. Ltd. Total 60000 4200000 4800000

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rovin Rawal, Addl.CIT
Section 11USection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

68 of the Act, no separate addition is being made u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act. While holding so, he rejected the calculation made by the assessee in terms of section

SPEEDY COURIER SERVICES PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD - 2(4), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 80/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Punyah Building Vs Ito Materials Pvt. Ltd. Ward-2 (1) House No.1002, Near Talab Faridabad Shiv Colony, Old Faridabad Haryana Ballahgarh Haryana 122002 Pan No.Aagcp8742B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sparsh Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Plot No.1066, Near Janta Barat Ward-2 (4) Ghar Baba Nagar, Faridabad Faridabad Haryana 121002 Haryana Pan No.Aascs2575D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Speedy Courier Services Pvt. Vs Ito Ltd. Ward- 2 (4) Plot No.1022, Near Talab Shiv Faridabad Colony, Faridabad Haryana Pan No.Aascs2579R (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

68 of the Act and also set aside the order of the CIT(A) in enhancing the income of the appellant u/s 251(1) of the Act by invoking Section 56(2) (viib

SPARSH BEAUTY CARE PVT. LTD.,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-2(4), HARYANA

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 86/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Punyah Building Vs Ito Materials Pvt. Ltd. Ward-2 (1) House No.1002, Near Talab Faridabad Shiv Colony, Old Faridabad Haryana Ballahgarh Haryana 122002 Pan No.Aagcp8742B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sparsh Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Plot No.1066, Near Janta Barat Ward-2 (4) Ghar Baba Nagar, Faridabad Faridabad Haryana 121002 Haryana Pan No.Aascs2575D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Speedy Courier Services Pvt. Vs Ito Ltd. Ward- 2 (4) Plot No.1022, Near Talab Shiv Faridabad Colony, Faridabad Haryana Pan No.Aascs2579R (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

68 of the Act and also set aside the order of the CIT(A) in enhancing the income of the appellant u/s 251(1) of the Act by invoking Section 56(2) (viib