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 communication

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

section 56(2)(vii) are applicable on Individual and HUF whereas Provisions of 56(2)(viia) are applicable on firm and company. As the assessee before us is an Individual we are concerned with Sex. 56(2)(vii). Finance (No.2) Act 2009 w.e.f. 01.10.2009 introduced clause (vii) as follows: “(vii) where an individual or a Hindu undivided family receives

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANKITECH PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

56 of the Act, dividend income is to be included under this head, viz., ―Income from Other Sources‖. Thus, the amount of dividend received by the shareholders is to be treated as income which is to be taxed under head ―Income from Other Sources‖. She referred to the ITA No.462 of 2009 & Ors. Page 26 of 50 Supreme Court judgment

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

56(2)(viia) was to prevent the practice of transferring of unlisted shares at prices below their fair market value. The expression "transfer" has altogether different connotation and meaning than the expression "issuance" and as such the provisions of said section

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

56(2)(viia) was to prevent the practice of transferring of unlisted shares at prices below their fair market value. The expression "transfer" has altogether different connotation and meaning than the expression "issuance" and as such the provisions of said section

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

Sections (1) and (2) to Section 92C are applicable to the assessed, as well as the Assessing Officer invoking power under Sub-Section (3) to Section 92C of the Act. As noted above, sub-section (2) to Section 92C stipulates that most appropriate method, out of the methods specified in sub-section (1) shall be applied to determine

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANSAL CONDOMINIUM PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

transfer of property either without consideration or inadequate consideration. A combined reading of the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) and the Memorandum explaining the provisions shows that the provision of section 56(2)(viia) would be attracted in the case of a recipient firm or company which receives the shares of a company without any consideration

VACHASPATI SHARMA,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -4(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Vachaspati Sharma Vs Ito Village – Hayatpur Garhi Ward-4 Harsaru, Hayatpur, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan No.Fnqps2021R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate Sh. K.L. Pahwa, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 Order Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Jm :

56 of the Income-tax Act on account of interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 of Rs. 4,78,95,440/- received by the appellant during the year, which was part of enhanced compensation for compulsory acquisition of his agricultural land exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 2. That having regard

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

Section 56(2)(vii)(c)(ii), ignoring the facts that the assessee had acquired shares before the commencement of said provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well on facts in confirming the addition made by the AO of Rs. 25,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Income

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

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

price actually received. Therefore addition of Rs.1,05,78,288 is deleted. 4.8 However, as noted earlier the company has given substantial benefit to its directors by transferring the shares at Rs.10 per share whereas the fair market value of such shares considering huge profitability and substantial amount of dividend is much higher at around Rs.250 per share. Therefore such

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

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

price actually received. Therefore addition of Rs.1,05,78,288 is deleted. 4.8 However, as noted earlier the company has given substantial benefit to its directors by transferring the shares at Rs.10 per share whereas the fair market value of such shares considering huge profitability and substantial amount of dividend is much higher at around Rs.250 per share. Therefore such

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

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

price actually received. Therefore addition of Rs.1,05,78,288 is deleted. 4.8 However, as noted earlier the company has given substantial benefit to its directors by transferring the shares at Rs.10 per share whereas the fair market value of such shares considering huge profitability and substantial amount of dividend is much higher at around Rs.250 per share. Therefore such

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

price actually received. Therefore addition of Rs.1,05,78,288 is deleted. 4.8 However, as noted earlier the company has given substantial benefit to its directors by transferring the shares at Rs.10 per share whereas the fair market value of such shares considering huge profitability and substantial amount of dividend is much higher at around Rs.250 per share. Therefore such

DCM SHRIIRAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 3 , NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

transfer of steam from eligible unit to non-eligible unit by considering the cost of production of the steam at Rs. Nil. 48. The ground number 4 is with respect to the disallowance u/s 14 A of the act. The learned authorised representative submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the honourable

M/S. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

transferred, directly or indirectly, by the employer free of cost or at concessional rate to his employees (including former employee or employees)' shall be taken as fringe benefit. The Explanation to this clause clarifies that for the purposes of this clause,—(i) 'specified security' means the securities as defined in clause (h) of section 2 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

transferred, directly or indirectly, by the employer free of cost or at concessional rate to his employees (including former employee or employees)' shall be taken as fringe benefit. The Explanation to this clause clarifies that for the purposes of this clause,—(i) 'specified security' means the securities as defined in clause (h) of section 2 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation

VEENA SHAH,PANIPAT vs. PR CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

transfer received by such assessee on or after the 1st day of April, 2004. 11. The amendment brought into Section 56 of the Act,vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 (with effect from 01.10.2010) [clause (viii) of sub- Section 2 to Section 56], relevant for deciding this caseis extracted hereunder: - 15 "56. Income from other sources: - (2) In particular and without

LIUGONG INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

56 ITA No.1482/Del./2015 of provisions concerning transfer pricing in the form of sections 92B to 92F. 59. Nevertheless, there is no specific mention of AMP expenses as one of the items of expenditure which can be deemed to be an international transaction. For this purpose, section 92B(1) read with section 92(1) becomes significant. Under section