ACIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

56(2)(viib) of the Act with effect from 1.8.2013 involving receipt of share capital if it exceeds the fair market value, the difference is chargeable to tax as income. The TPO proposed to bring this transaction as income of the assessee where the assessee had invested in their AE’s with the observation, without bench marking the capital transaction

DCIE CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S.PALI FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Pali Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. Room No. 658, 6Th Floor 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road 37-40 Subash Road Mumbai-400 020 Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057 Pan/Gir No.Aafcp0089G (Appellant) .. Respondent) & C.O. No. 77/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.904/Mum/2018) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Pali Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cc-8(4) 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Room No. 658, 6Th Floor 37-40 Subash Road Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 057 Pan/Gir No.Aafcp0089G (Appellant) .. Respondent)

56(2)(viib) are applicable from the A.Y, 2013-14 and onwards. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the A.Q, ought to have considered the law as it was in force during A-Y.2009-10. It has also been emphasized, during the appellate proceedings that even the first proviso appended 10 section 68 of the Act, which requires

DCIT CENTRAL CIR-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S.ACRO EXPORTS TRADE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Acro Exports Trade Room No. 658, 6Th Floor Pvt.Ltd. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 37-40 Subash Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057

56(2)(viib) are applicable from the A.Y, 2013-14 and onwards. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the A.Q, ought to have considered the law as it was in force during A-Y.2009- 10. It has also been emphasized, during the appellate proceedings that even the first proviso appended 10 section 68 of the Act, which requires

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. AMAZON METALS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Acro Exports Trade Room No. 658, 6Th Floor Pvt.Ltd. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 37-40 Subash Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057

56(2)(viib) are applicable from the A.Y, 2013-14 and onwards. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the A.Q, ought to have considered the law as it was in force during A-Y.2009- 10. It has also been emphasized, during the appellate proceedings that even the first proviso appended 10 section 68 of the Act, which requires

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S.GANDHAR YARN PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

56(2)(viib) are applicable from the A.Y. 2013-14 and onwards. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the A.O. ought to have considered the law as it was in force during A.Y.2009-10. It has also been emphasized, during the appellate proceedings that even the first proviso appended to section 68 of the Act, which requires the investor also

ITO 6(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. AROGYA BHARTI HEALTH PARK P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

bogus entries to bring in assessee’s own money under the guise of capital in the company. The AO has basically questioned documentation furnished by the assessee to prove the credit found in its books of account. According to the AO, although the assessee has filed bank statement to prove the transfer of money through banking channel, but the bank

INCOME TAX OFFICER 11(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VARAD VINAYAK REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection and cross appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar& Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanito, 11-3(2), Room No. 428, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ............ Appellant Vs. M/S Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd., 105, Vastushilp, Rajmata Jijabai Road, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aabcv7419A ............ Respondent C.O. No. 50/Mum/2019 In Ita No.5279/Mum/2017 (A.Y.2009-10) M/S Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd., 105, Vastushilp, Rajmata Jijabai Road, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aabcv7419A ............ Appellant Vs. Ito, 11-3(2), Room No. 428, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ............ Respondent M/S Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd., 105, Vastushilp, Rajmata Jijabai Road, Pump House, Andheri (E)

bogus addresses. In view of this, department is relying on the decision of ITAT, Indore in the case of Aggarwal Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Addi.CIT Range 5, Indore in ITA No.151/Ind./2009 dated 31.10.2011.” 3. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in appreciating the fact that

VARAD VINAYAK REALTY PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 1 (3)-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection and cross appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar& Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanito, 11-3(2), Room No. 428, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ............ Appellant Vs. M/S Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd., 105, Vastushilp, Rajmata Jijabai Road, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aabcv7419A ............ Respondent C.O. No. 50/Mum/2019 In Ita No.5279/Mum/2017 (A.Y.2009-10) M/S Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd., 105, Vastushilp, Rajmata Jijabai Road, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aabcv7419A ............ Appellant Vs. Ito, 11-3(2), Room No. 428, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ............ Respondent

bogus addresses. In view of this, department is relying on the decision of ITAT, Indore in the case of Aggarwal Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Addi.CIT Range 5, Indore in ITA No.151/Ind./2009 dated 31.10.2011.” 3. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in appreciating the fact that

BLOOM PACKAGING P LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 39, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

viib) of the Act. 13. Similarly, we analyse the provisions of section 28(iv) of the Act. These provisions imply the arising of any benefit / perquisite to the assessee-firm. On facts of the present case, we find, there is no such any benefit or perquisite to the assessee firm by transfer of shares of UPL and UEL to NCPL

RUKMANI AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENT.CIR-5(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharmarukmani Agencies Private Vs. D.C.I.T., Limited, Central Circle-5(1), 4Th Floor, Silver Metropolis, 19Th Floor, Air India Jaicoach Compound, Building, Nariman Point, Opposite Bimbisar Nagar, Mumbai-400021. Western Express, Highway Goregaon (E), Mumbai- 400063. Pan/Gir No.Aaacr 4998 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

56(2)(viib) has no application. 15. Coming to the case laws relied upon by the assessee. The assessee has relied upon plethora of judgements, including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC). In the case laws relied upon by the assessee, the issue

ITO 4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. ROBINSONS CARGO & LOGISTICS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.117/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Asst. Cit-1(3)(1), M/S. Robinsons Cargo & Logistics Room No. 564, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Canara Bank Building, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. 15/17, Adi Marzan Path, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aagcs 9709 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ram Tiwari ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Wagle सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 22.01.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 28.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 30.10.2015 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2012- 13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: “Whether On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.5,65,31,290/- Made U/S. 68 Of The Act On The Account Of Share Premium Charged By The Appellant Assessee Without

purchased assets from another Group concern M/s Robinsons Global Logistics (P) Ltd and consideration for assets sold was paid by allotting shares at premium. Thus, it is a case of restructuring of Group concerns and not of cash credit covered by Section 68 of the IT Act, 1961. It was held in Shirish Maniar Vs. ITO (2008) 167 Taxman

M/S JR FIBER GLASS INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2848/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Jr Fiber Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd.

56(2)(viib): "Where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year, from any person being a resident, any consideration for issue of shares that exceeds the face value of such shares, the aggregate consideration received for such shares as exceeds the fair market value of the shares: Provided that

DCIT, CIRCLE.6(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. CYQUATOR MEDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, overall, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4312/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-6(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Cyquator Media R. No. 504, 5Th Floor, Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 135, Continental Building, Road, Mumbai-400020. Dr. A. B. Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018. Cross Objection No. 302/Mum/2018 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.4312/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Cyquator Media Services बिधम/ Dcit-6(2)(1) Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 18Th Floor, A Wing, Mumbai-400020. Marathon Futurex, N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4478/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Cyquator Media बिधम/ Dcit-6(2)(1) R. No. 504, 5Th Floor, Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 135, Continental Building, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Dr. A. B. Road, Worli, Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400018. Dcit-6(2)(1) R. No. 504, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecp0069P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jay Bhansali/Ms. Slachi Jain Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) & Mr. R. A. Dhyani (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/03/2023 C.O. 302/Mum/2018 A.Ys. 2012-13 Shri Cyquator Media Services Pvt. Ltd.

purchase of such property by the other company or as a result of the distribution of such property to the other company after the winding up of the first-mentioned company;” 29. From the facts placed before us, it is noted that the terms of the scheme of amalgamation was in consonance with Section 2

CYQUATOR MEDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, RANGE .6(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, overall, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4312/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-6(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Cyquator Media R. No. 504, 5Th Floor, Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 135, Continental Building, Road, Mumbai-400020. Dr. A. B. Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018. Cross Objection No. 302/Mum/2018 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.4312/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Cyquator Media Services बिधम/ Dcit-6(2)(1) Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 18Th Floor, A Wing, Mumbai-400020. Marathon Futurex, N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4478/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Cyquator Media बिधम/ Dcit-6(2)(1) R. No. 504, 5Th Floor, Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 135, Continental Building, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Dr. A. B. Road, Worli, Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400018. Dcit-6(2)(1) R. No. 504, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecp0069P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jay Bhansali/Ms. Slachi Jain Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) & Mr. R. A. Dhyani (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/03/2023 C.O. 302/Mum/2018 A.Ys. 2012-13 Shri Cyquator Media Services Pvt. Ltd.

purchase of such property by the other company or as a result of the distribution of such property to the other company after the winding up of the first-mentioned company;” 29. From the facts placed before us, it is noted that the terms of the scheme of amalgamation was in consonance with Section 2

HRI HEALTHCARE PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST. CIT CIRCLE-10(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhhri Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of 602, 6Th Floor, Supreme Income Tax, Circle Chambers, Off Veera 10(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Desai Road, Andheri (W) 2Nd Floor, Mumbai – 400053 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacch7613M Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : K. Gopal Respondent By : Soumendu Kumar Dash Date Of Hearing 16.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-17, Mumbai, Dated 28.01.2019 For A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1.1 The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Making An Addition Of Rs.4,96,08,000 Under Section 56(2)(Viib) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act') Being The Difference Between The Share Premium Received By The Appellant From Its Holding Company & The Fair Market Value Of The Shares There Of As Computed Under Rule 11Ua Of The Income-Tax Rules, 1962( The Rules") & Cit(A) In Confirming The Same 1.2 The Assessing Officer Erred In Holding The Issue Price Of Right Shares To Existing Shareholder Of The Company Which Were Adopted On The Basis Of A Valuation Report Of An Independent Valuer As Exorbitant On Reasons Purely In The Realm Of Conjectures/Surmises Without Appreciating That The Same Is In Accordance With Provisions Of The Act & Cit(A) In Confirming The Same. 1.3 It Is Submitted That Valuation Is An Art & Not A Science. The Valuation Are Based On Certain Assumptions & Estimations Especially In Case Of New Company. The Valuation Has Been Done Based On The Dcf Method

bogus sources or sources whose identity and capacity was unsatisfactory and given that the shareholder of the Appellant was known and was reputed company, section 56(2)(viib) of the Act could not be pressed into service.” 2. Fact in brief is that return of income declaring loss of Rs.256,11,730/- was filed on 29.09.2015. The case was subject

DCIT 6(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. EDESK SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7113/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Dcit 6(2)(2) M/S. Edesk Services Ltd. R.No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, 6-A, Lalwani Indl. Estate M.K Road, Churchgate, 14, G.D. Ambekar Road, V. Mumbai 400020 Wadala, Mumbai 400031 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcb5087H

56(2)(viib) cannot be invoked for the impugned assessment year. 7.4 Now coming to the next count on which additions were made by invocation of provisions of Section 68 of the 1961 Act. Section 68 of the 1961 Act creates a deeming fiction when any sum is found credited in the books of accounts of the tax-payer, then

INCOME TAX OFFICER 11(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. VASTU MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer-11(3)(2), M/S Vastu Minerals Pvt. Ltd., R.No. 428, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. 4, Arun Villa, Subhash Road-B, Vile Road, Parle (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aaccv 0308 B Appellant Respondent

purchase of shares at a premium, does not show the creditworthiness of the shareholders. In fact, the assessee is obliged to explain not only the source of share premium but also the nature. The assessee has offered explanation simply stating that the excessive share premium is covered by the provisions of sec. 56(2)(vib) of the Act applicable from

DCIT-CC-7(3), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. SHRI MAJNI KARAMSHI PATEL, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross objections of the assessee and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal, Accountat Member Dcit, Cc-7(3) Vs. Shri Manji Karamshi Room No. 655, Patel Aayakar Bhavan, Office No. 1, Patel M.K.Road, Bhavan-29, Vijaywadi, Mumbai.-400020. Dr. Nagindas N Shah Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 45/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2014-15) Shri Manji Karamshi Vs. Dcit, Cc-7(3) Patel Room No. 655, Aayakar Office No. 1, Patel Bhavan, Bhuvan-29, Vijaywadi, M.K .Road, Dr. Nagindas N Shah Mumbai-400002. Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent

purchased by fictitious companies which were not in existence and Assessee in support of its stand about genuineness of transaction entered into with such companies had produced voluminous documents which included assessment orders, the burden would shift on revenue to establish their case. The SLP filed against the said order of the High Court is also dismissed