THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 2(iii) approval in view of the interim order dated 10th January, 2017 of the Division Bench of this Court. However, this does not, in any manner, confer any right upon the petitioner. Similarly, the communication dated 20th October, 2016 issued by the Ministry of Mines does not come to the aid of the petitioner. By the said

VIJAY AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 48(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of different assessees are partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

56(2)(vii) is unsustainable in law. 27. With regard to the addition made in respect of unsecured loan received from M/s Vidhya Shankar Investments Pvt Ltd., it is submitted that aforesaid company is a Non Banking Finance Company (NBFC) and is engaged in the business of sale, purchase and trading of the shares and giving loans and advances. From

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

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)

68 of the act has been made on account of allotment made of share by the assessee. The ld CIT(A) further confirmed the addition of Rs. 19.90 crores u/s 56(2)(viib) on protective basis. These are the only two issues in the appeal. 8. Brief facts of the case shows that the assessee is a company who filed

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

56(2)(x). In this regard, it is submitted that ld. CIT(A) could not have changed the section as the power to change any section which was invoked by the AO has not been granted to the CIT(A). iii. None of the authorities referred the matter to the DVO. 87. The issue to be examined

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSIN LTD ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25 , NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

56(2)(x). In this regard, it is submitted that ld. CIT(A) could not have changed the section as the power to change any section which was invoked by the AO has not been granted to the CIT(A). iii. None of the authorities referred the matter to the DVO. 87. The issue to be examined

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

56(2)(x). In this regard, it is submitted that ld. CIT(A) could not have changed the section as the power to change any section which was invoked by the AO has not been granted to the CIT(A). iii. None of the authorities referred the matter to the DVO. 87. The issue to be examined

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

56(2)(x). In this regard, it is submitted that ld. CIT(A) could not have changed the section as the power to change any section which was invoked by the AO has not been granted to the CIT(A). iii. None of the authorities referred the matter to the DVO. 87. The issue to be examined

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

56(2)(x). In this regard, it is submitted that ld. CIT(A) could not have changed the section as the power to change any section which was invoked by the AO has not been granted to the CIT(A). iii. None of the authorities referred the matter to the DVO. 87. The issue to be examined

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

56(2)(x). In this regard, it is submitted that ld. CIT(A) could not have changed the section as the power to change any section which was invoked by the AO has not been granted to the CIT(A). iii. None of the authorities referred the matter to the DVO. 87. The issue to be examined

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

56(2)(x). In this regard, it is submitted that ld. CIT(A) could not have changed the section as the power to change any section which was invoked by the AO has not been granted to the CIT(A). iii. None of the authorities referred the matter to the DVO. 87. The issue to be examined

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

x 10 =82.028 31 ITA.No.104/Del./2021 M/s. Potent Foods Pvt. Ltd., Sector 20-B, Faridabad, Haryana. Book Value of Assets as on 31.03.2015 (Amount in Rs.) Cash and cash equivalent- 32,312.23 Short term loans and advances- 2,29,93,818.00 Other current assets- 3,56,904.00 Total 2,33,83,034.23 Book Value of Liability

MR. J.S. GUJRAL,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

X Rs.240/-) and this income is added to the total income of the assessee in terms of section 17(2)(iii) read with section 2(24)(iv) of the I.T. Act, 1961). 6. Before Ld. CIT (A) the appellant raised objections against validity of assumption of jurisdiction to reassess u/s 147 of the Act, besides challenging the addition

MR. RANJEET SINGH,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

X Rs.240/-) and this income is added to the total income of the assessee in terms of section 17(2)(iii) read with section 2(24)(iv) of the I.T. Act, 1961). 6. Before Ld. CIT (A) the appellant raised objections against validity of assumption of jurisdiction to reassess u/s 147 of the Act, besides challenging the addition

MR. KRISHNA KUMAR PANT,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

X Rs.240/-) and this income is added to the total income of the assessee in terms of section 17(2)(iii) read with section 2(24)(iv) of the I.T. Act, 1961). 6. Before Ld. CIT (A) the appellant raised objections against validity of assumption of jurisdiction to reassess u/s 147 of the Act, besides challenging the addition

MR. SANJIV NARAYAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

X Rs.240/-) and this income is added to the total income of the assessee in terms of section 17(2)(iii) read with section 2(24)(iv) of the I.T. Act, 1961). 6. Before Ld. CIT (A) the appellant raised objections against validity of assumption of jurisdiction to reassess u/s 147 of the Act, besides challenging the addition

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

x 312.99) to the income of the assessee. 4.1 Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee contended that as per section 56(2)(viib) of the Act taxability arises when a company receives consideration exceeding fair market value of shares from resident. As per first proviso to section 56(2)(viib), exclusion has been provided where the consideration

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

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

x Rs.22,765.42 each]. The A.O. was of the view that since the assessee had introduced share capital during the year under consideration, provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) is applicable to the issuance of shares. He thereafter rejected the valuation report wherein the shares were valued on the basis of DCF method and thereafter on the basis

RIVET ELECTRICAL PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. PR. CIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Rivet Electrical Pvt.Ltd., Vs Pr.Cit, Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Faridabad, Near Neelam Flyover, Sec-20B, Haryana. Faridabad, Haryana-121002. Pan-Aafcr8803C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajeev Saxena, Adv., Ms. Sumangl Saxena, Adv. & Shri Sahyamsunder, Adv. Respondent By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.11.2022

56(2)(viib) are not applicable and the share premium should not be added back to the income of the assessee company. Thus, the burden shifts on the Department to show that even if share applicants did not have the means to make investment, the investment made by them actually emanated from the coffers of the assessee