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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai158Delhi145Kolkata47Jaipur19Bangalore19Chandigarh18Chennai12Hyderabad11Ahmedabad9Raipur8Indore6Visakhapatnam5Nagpur5Pune5Surat5Cuttack4Rajkot3Jodhpur3Amritsar2Dehradun2Allahabad1Lucknow1SC1Calcutta1Cochin1

Key Topics

Section 26316Section 143(3)14Section 569Section 153A8Section 56(2)(viib)7Section 14A7Addition to Income7Section 686Section 56(2)(vii)5Survey u/s 133A

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1187/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar,CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(3)Section 47
2
Section 56
Section 56(2)(viia)
Section 56(2)(viiia)

viib) of the Act, has upheld the view that issue of shares at face value by an amalgamated company to shareholders of the amalgamating company in pursuance to a scheme of amalgamation would not fall under the anti-abuse provisions of the Act. vi. Further, if section 56(2)(viia) of the Act are made applicable in such cases

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(4), HYDERABAD vs. QUARK ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1270/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Ito, Ward-16(4) Vs. M/S.Quark Enterprises 1St Floor, ‘B’ Block Private Limited I.T.Towers, A.C.Guards 10Th Floor, Ramky Masab Tank Grandoise Hyderabad Ramky Towers Complex Road No.62, Gachibowli Hyderabad-500 032

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. M.Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 56(2)(viib)

Section 56(2)(viib) FMV “as may be substantiated by the company to the satisfaction of the AO, based on the value, on the date of issue of shares, of its assets, including intangible assets being goodwill, know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises, or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature.” Hence, he valued

N JAIVEER REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 622/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Dr. M. Narmada, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 224Section 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

viib) of the IT Act,1961 after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Page 5 of 26 ITA Nos 619, 621, 623 and 624 of 2019 K Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy & Other Hyd. 4. The assessee argued that the company M/s ADBL had disclosed the difference in rate amounting to Rs. 16/- per share in the company

N JAIDEEP REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 623/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Dr. M. Narmada, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 224Section 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

viib) of the IT Act,1961 after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Page 5 of 26 ITA Nos 619, 621, 623 and 624 of 2019 K Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy & Other Hyd. 4. The assessee argued that the company M/s ADBL had disclosed the difference in rate amounting to Rs. 16/- per share in the company

K VIJAYA BHASKAR REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 619/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Dr. M. Narmada, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 224Section 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

viib) of the IT Act,1961 after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Page 5 of 26 ITA Nos 619, 621, 623 and 624 of 2019 K Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy & Other Hyd. 4. The assessee argued that the company M/s ADBL had disclosed the difference in rate amounting to Rs. 16/- per share in the company

K LAXMA REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 621/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Dr. M. Narmada, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 224Section 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

viib) of the IT Act,1961 after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Page 5 of 26 ITA Nos 619, 621, 623 and 624 of 2019 K Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy & Other Hyd. 4. The assessee argued that the company M/s ADBL had disclosed the difference in rate amounting to Rs. 16/- per share in the company

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. VARSITY EDUCATION MANAGEMENT PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 208/HYD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 208/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Varsity Education Income Tax, Central Circle Management (P) Ltd 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aadcv6100E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate A.V. Raghuram राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B. Balakrishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT(DR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

68 or section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, then merely for the reason that the addition has been

AUTOZILLA SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 1568/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Years: 2016-17 Autozilla Solutions Pvt. Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ltd., Hyderabad. Ward – 1(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aanca 4025H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/01/2022

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

68 of the Act that identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions. The AO, therefore, added the entire amount of Rs. 79,91,550/- including the face value of the shares. 3.3 Alternatively, applying section 56(2)(viib

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ALPHA VILLAS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1106/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 56

section 56(2) (viib), with effect from 1-4-2013 onwards, which authorizes the assessing of the excess premium as income in the hands of the Investee company. However, there is no corresponding/ parallel provision, enabling disallowance of cost in the hands of the investor. Page 6 of 22 ITA Nos 1106 and 1107 of 2017 Alpha Villas

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ALPHA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1107/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 56

section 56(2) (viib), with effect from 1-4-2013 onwards, which authorizes the assessing of the excess premium as income in the hands of the Investee company. However, there is no corresponding/ parallel provision, enabling disallowance of cost in the hands of the investor. Page 6 of 22 ITA Nos 1106 and 1107 of 2017 Alpha Villas

CLONZ BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 636/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2017-18 Clonz Biotech Private Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcc7742B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Srikanth Reddy, Y. Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.11.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Srikanth Reddy, Y. Sr.AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

68 without considering evidences submitted by the appellant, including Allotment Forms filed with MCA, Certificates issued by the Company Secretary with respect to allotments, Bank Statements reflecting the transaction, and Confirmation Letters given by allottees. 2. The Assessing Officer erred in making addition u/s 56(2)(vii) without considering evidences submitted by the appellant, including Allotment Forms filed with