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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

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

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 - 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

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

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

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

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

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

TSI YATRA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

price by Rs. 82 within a short span of 4 months. (xi) As per Rule 11UA, onus has been caste upon merchant banker to compute FMV as per DCF method. This onus has not truly been discharge by the merchant 24 I.T.A. No.1068/DEL/2019 banker in present case since instead of making independent and comparable inquiries, he has simply relied upon

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

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

HIGH WINGS CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD- 11(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

transferred to by a 'relative' to another 'relative' as defined in Explanation ('e) of section 56(2)(vii). 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Sunrise Academy of Medical Specialities (India) Pvt Ltd Vs. ITO (2018) 94 taxmann.com 181 (Kerala HC) totally inapplicable

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

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

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. 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

RAJ SHEELA GROWTH FUND (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 21(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L. P. Sahu

56(2)(viia) was brought in the statute as ‘anti abuse’ provision to prevent practice of transferring the unlisted shares price much below the Fair Market Value. The relevant section brought by the Finance Act, 2008, w.e.f. 01.06.2010 reads as under: “(viia) where a firm or a company not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

In the result, appeal of the appellant is allowed

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act and the prescribed Rule is Rule 11UAA. For the purposes of determining fair market value of equity shares in terms of 11UAA, the value as per Rule 11UA(1)(c)(b) is to be applied. Also, there is no requirement in Rule 11UA(1)(c)(b) that the value shall be determined

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

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

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

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