BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

32 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 56(2)(viib)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chandigarh50Mumbai35Delhi32Chennai10Hyderabad9Bangalore7Kolkata7Pune6Nagpur5Jaipur5Visakhapatnam2Jodhpur2Ahmedabad2Raipur1

Key Topics

Section 56(2)(viib)43Section 143(3)31Addition to Income29Section 26319Section 56(2)18Section 13210Section 153C9Section 69C9Section 143(2)8Unexplained Investment

HERO FINCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), DELHI, C.R. BUILDING

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

ITA 2542/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 251(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

section 56(2)(viib). It is evidenced, during the appellate proceedings, by the\nfact that M/s. Otter Ltd has immediately sold certain no of shares to an India\nbased Indian resident entity. M/s. Link Investment Trust. It is clearly evident\nthat if M/s. Link Investment Trust had bought the shares of the appellant-\ncompany at such a huge premium

ABHIRVEY PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 32 · Page 1 of 2

4
Search & Seizure4
Deduction3
ITA 9400/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed
ITAT Delhi
27 Dec 2022
AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bhagwati Charan, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

transfer agent, investments, consultants, stocks, shares and securities of all kind of description. During the previous year relevant for the assessment year 2014-15, the assessee had allotted 3,15,000 Equity shares of face value of Rs. 10/- each at a premium of Rs. 40/- per share consisting total amount of Rs. 1,26,00,000/-. The said allotment

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) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and made its addition. 4.1. Aggrieved by the order of the A.O. the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 06.12.2019 decided the issue in favour of the assessee by observing as under : “5. Decision : I have perused the assessment order, submissions

THINKSTATIONS LEARNING PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-8(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 9824/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

price. The Assessing Officer 2 ITA. Nos. 9824 & 7345/Del/2019 referring to the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) and the explanation he was of the view that assessee has to consider the valuation whichever is higher between (i) the valuation according to Rule 11UA of Income Tax Rules or (ii) the value of shares to the satisfaction of the Assessing

THINKSTATIONS LEARNING PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-25(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7345/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

price. The Assessing Officer 2 ITA. Nos. 9824 & 7345/Del/2019 referring to the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) and the explanation he was of the view that assessee has to consider the valuation whichever is higher between (i) the valuation according to Rule 11UA of Income Tax Rules or (ii) the value of shares to the satisfaction of the Assessing

ACIT CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI vs. GAMMA PIZZAKRAFT (OVERSEAS) PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1309/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. T. M. Shiva Kumar, Adv. &For Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 31(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

price for the shares. 6 Gamma Pizzakraft (Overseas) Pvt. Ltd. h) The assessee submitted that certain general statement of the valuer could not be a basis for making additions. 11. It is a fact on record that the assessee made further submissions on 07.12.2018 vide letter dated 06.12.2018. The AO refused to accept the said letter on 07.12.2018. The assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI vs. CONTINENTAL CORRUGATORS PVT. LTD., FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1538/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

viib) of sub-section (2) of section 56 shall be the value, on the valuation date, of such unquoted equity shares as determined in the following manner under clause (a) or clause (b), at the option of the assessee, namely:- (a) the fair market value of unquoted equity shares = (A-L) ×(PV), (PE) Where, A = book value of the assets

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 653/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

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)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhavi, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 56(2)(viib)

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 4.3. The appellant in the written submissions made during the appellate proceedings has tried to justify the financial projections for 20 years used in the valuation report prepared as per discounted cash flow method which has been rejected by the AO in the assessment order. The appellant in this regard has submitted that

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6225/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

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

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

price of Rs. 80/- including share premium of Rs. 70/- per share to the following investors: M/s Best Buildmart (P) Ltd., M/s Goodluck Industries Ltd., M/s Metalcity Construction Kovai (P) Ltd., M/s Radha Ballabh Nest Build (P) Ltd, M/s Texcity Constructions Kovai (P) Ltd. 4. Due to unfavourable market conditions, the assessee company could not start its business activities. During

FRAGMENT NIVESH P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 572/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Enormous Nivesh Pvt. Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., 1, Zamrudpur Community Income Tax, Central Circle Centre, Kailash Colony, 13, Ara Centre, New Delhi – 1100 48 Jhandewalan Extension, Pan No. Aabcd1454F Delhi -1100 55 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Fragment Nivesh P. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 1, Zamrudpur Community Income Tax, Central Circle Centre, Kailash Colony, 13, Ara Centre, New Delhi – 1100 48 Jhandewalan Extension, Pan No. Aaecs5314G Delhi -1100 55 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Avikal Manu, CIT - DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 56(2)

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act was only applicable in circumstances where the receipt of consideration for issue of shares were involved. Circular No.3 dated 21.01.2019 was not applicable. Reliance was placed on paras 5, 11 and 17 to 19 of the decision in the case of “PCIT vs. Jigir Jaswantlal Shah”. On merit, it was submitted that Assessing

ENORMOUS NIVESH P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 570/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Enormous Nivesh Pvt. Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., 1, Zamrudpur Community Income Tax, Central Circle Centre, Kailash Colony, 13, Ara Centre, New Delhi – 1100 48 Jhandewalan Extension, Pan No. Aabcd1454F Delhi -1100 55 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Fragment Nivesh P. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 1, Zamrudpur Community Income Tax, Central Circle Centre, Kailash Colony, 13, Ara Centre, New Delhi – 1100 48 Jhandewalan Extension, Pan No. Aaecs5314G Delhi -1100 55 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Avikal Manu, CIT - DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 56(2)

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act was only applicable in circumstances where the receipt of consideration for issue of shares were involved. Circular No.3 dated 21.01.2019 was not applicable. Reliance was placed on paras 5, 11 and 17 to 19 of the decision in the case of “PCIT vs. Jigir Jaswantlal Shah”. On merit, it was submitted that Assessing

ACIT CIRCLE-15(2), NEW DELHI vs. LIFESTYLE PROBUILD PVT LTD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3552/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: AO; that valuation report dated 15.03.2012 prepared by the Chartered Accountant as per rule 11UA

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Jyoti Verma, Sr. DR
Section 56(2)(viib)

viib) of sub-section (2) of section 56 by the Act No. 23 of 2019, w.e.f. 1.4.2020 : (aa) "specified fund" means a fund established or incorporated in India in the form of a trust or a company or a limited liability partnership or a body corporate which has been granted a certificate of registration as a Category

KANTI COMMERCIAL (P) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 574/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 119Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viia)

price of share as on 31.3.2014 of Miller Traders (P) Ltd Is 9.10 per share as the assessee has purchased the shares at Rs 10 per share which is more than the market value the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) does not apply. b. The appellant has submitted that the provisions of Section 56(2)(viia) shall not apply

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI vs. CADDIE HOTELS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1721/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

price it would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date and the appellant may obtain a report from a merchant banker or an accountant in respect of such valuation. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-clause (b) of clause (c) of subrule (1), the fair market value of unquoted equity shares for the purposes

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI vs. CADDIE HOTELS PVT LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1724/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

price it would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date and the appellant may obtain a report from a merchant banker or an accountant in respect of such valuation. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-clause (b) of clause (c) of subrule (1), the fair market value of unquoted equity shares for the purposes

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI vs. CADDIE HOTELS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1723/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

price it would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date and the appellant may obtain a report from a merchant banker or an accountant in respect of such valuation. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-clause (b) of clause (c) of subrule (1), the fair market value of unquoted equity shares for the purposes

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI vs. CADDIE HOTELS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1722/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

price it would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date and the appellant may obtain a report from a merchant banker or an accountant in respect of such valuation. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-clause (b) of clause (c) of subrule (1), the fair market value of unquoted equity shares for the purposes

CADDIE HOTELS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 17, DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2014/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

price it would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date and the appellant may obtain a report from a merchant banker or an accountant in respect of such valuation. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-clause (b) of clause (c) of subrule (1), the fair market value of unquoted equity shares for the purposes

SNG METALS PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD-2(4), FARIDABAD

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7450/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

price at which the shares are issued is not relevant. 2 2. That the learned CIT(A) and Ld ITO failed to appreciate the fact that no funds were actually brought in by the company and shares were allotted merely by book entry through the credit balances of directors under unsecured loans already existing in the books of accounts

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

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 8306/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

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”).

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 56(2)(viib)

price, expressed in terms of cash equivalents, at which property would change hands between a hypothetical willing and able buyer and a hypothetical willing and able seller, acting at arm's length in an open and unrestricted market, when neither is under compulsion to buy or sell and when both have reasonable knowledge of the relevant facts". 7. Valuation Approaches