ACIT - CIRCLE- 6(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. DIRECT MEDIA DISTRIBUTION VENTURES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue dismissed and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2715/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Direct Media Distribution Of Income Tax 6(2)(2), Ventures Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai 135, Continental Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 048 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadcd1940Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

56(2)(viib). 31. In so far as, whether the receipt of shares at nil consideration can construed as business income liable for tax u/s 28(iv), we agree with the findings and the observations of the ld.CIT(A) that the benefit of perquisite as stipulated under clause (iv) of Section 28 that it should arise from business or profession

CABLE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjeet Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

gains of business or profession”. 45. Further the coordinate bench in Rupee Finance Management (P) Ltd Vs ACIT (supra) held that when as a part of memorandum of understanding between group companies, certain shares of a group company were transferred to assessee at cost, and the purchase was by way of investment only and it was not a case

DCIT-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. JAYMALA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dism

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13

56(2)(viib) of the Act and the same is enumerated as Income in Section 2(24)(xvi) of the Act. same is enumerated as Income in Section 2(24)(xvi) of the Act. same is enumerated as Income in Section 2(24)(xvi) of the Act. However, what is However, what is bought into the ambit of income

JOSEPH MUDALIAR,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4 (3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman ()

56(2)(viib), ignoring the fact that property was booked under construction in OCT2013 when the property market price was lower. 2. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in disallowing Rs. 150000/ being development charges paid to builders for 4 flats & bank interest of Rs.173308/- paid during construction period while calculating long term capital gain, ignoring the fact that these

NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

gains of business or profession”. 45. Further the coordinate bench in Rupee Finance Management (P) Ltd Vs ACIT (supra) held that when as a part of memorandum of understanding between group companies, certain shares of a group company were transferred to assessee at cost, and the purchase was by way of investment only and it was not a case

ARM INFRA & UTILITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-6, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

capital gains which makes it clear that "shares" and "debentures" are distinct. Therefore, only "shares" are covered within the provisions of section 56(2)(viib

RADIANT LIFE CARE MUMBAI P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 Radiant Life Care Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., Principle Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor Man Excellenza, S.V. Income Tax Mumbai-3, Road, Vile Parle (W), Vs. R. No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400056. Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aagcr 9198 D Appellant Respondent

56 (2)(viib) and depreciation on deposit of ₹25 crore. ITA Nos. 895 & 296/M/2021 27 Radiant Life Care Mumbai 7.19 Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi), wherein it is held that since

RADIANT LIFE CARE MUMBAI P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 Radiant Life Care Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., Principle Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor Man Excellenza, S.V. Income Tax Mumbai-3, Road, Vile Parle (W), Vs. R. No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400056. Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aagcr 9198 D Appellant Respondent

56 (2)(viib) and depreciation on deposit of ₹25 crore. ITA Nos. 895 & 296/M/2021 27 Radiant Life Care Mumbai 7.19 Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi), wherein it is held that since

MAX HOSPITALS AND ALLIED SERVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MUMBAI -3, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2018-19 Max Hospitals & Principal Allied Services Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor, Income Tax Mumbai- 3 Man Excellenza, Room No.612, Vs. S. V. Road, 6Th Floor, Vile Parle (W.), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400056 Maharishi Karve Road, Pan: Aagcr9198D Mumbai- 400020. Appellant : Respondent

Section 56(2)(viib).  Assessee filed reply dated 3/4/21.[Pg 4-52][8-9]The assesse Company has vide its letter dt. 12/10/2017 [Pg 131-165] submitted details of shares allotted during the year along-with Valuation reports. B. Also, AO had issued notice u/s 142(1) dtd 28/10/2019 [Pg 248-250] asking for details of share capital received along

TOPSGRUP ELECTRONICS SYSTEMS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 8(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amit Shuklam/S. Topsgrup Electronic Systems Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3) Ltd. (Previsously Tops Sequipment Ltd.) Àayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 5, Royal Palms Golf & Country Club Vs. Mumbai 400020 Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (E) Mumbai 400065 Pan - Aaact3291K Appellant Respondent

Gains chargeable to tax under Section 45 of the Act are, defined to be income. The amounts received on issue of share capital including the premium are undoubtedly on capital account. Share premium have been made taxable by a legal fiction under section 56(2)(viib

MSC CREWING SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 8(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodmsc Crewing Services Private Limited, Msc House, 2Nd-3Rd Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai 400 059. Pan: Aaecm 1876B ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.Commissioner Income-Tax , Circle 8(2), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 006 .... Respondent Dy.Commissioner Income-Tax , Circle 10(2)(2) R.No.209,Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 006 Vs. Msc Crewing Services Private Limited, Msc House, 2Nd-3Rd Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai 400 059. Pan: Aaecm 1876B Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth Revenue By : Shri N.K.Chand Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/01/2017 (Assessment Year 2010-11 Order

Gains chargeable to tax under Section 45 of the Act are, defined to be income. The amounts received on issue of share capital including the premium is undoubtedly on capital account. Share premium have been made taxable by a legal fiction under Section 56(2)(viib

INDGLOBAL NETWORK SUPPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, MUMBAI

Accordingly grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5940/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

56(2) (viib) of the Act. Ultimately the final sale of shares took place in July 2014 and the assessee Company received sale proceeds of Rs. 122.35 crores. The capital gains on the same have been offered for tax for the financial year 2014-15 relevant to A.Y. 2015-16. 7 I.T.A. No. 5940/Mum/2018 M/s Indglobal Network Support

SHRI MOHD. ILYAS ANSARI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 23(2)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Mohd. Ilyas Ansari V. Income Tax Officer - 23(2)(3) Room No. 22, 1St Floor Room No. 110 Building No. 41, Bootwala Manzil Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Navpada, Bandra(E) Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aexpa7459N (Appellant) (Respondent)

viib) of the Act in the hands of the assessee. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the above order. However, the Ld. CIT(A) also did not consider the valuation report submitted by the assessee holding that the assessee had not disputed the valuation made by the stamp valuation authority. Accordingly, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed

PRL DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI CITY vs. CIRCLE 8(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ground V of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

Section 56(2)(viib) is to prevent unlawful gains by issuing company in the garb of capital receipts. In the instant

KEVA FRGRANCES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 4 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

gains of business or profession. In subsection 1 of this section the term "actual cost" has been defined. There are various provisions and explanations to this subsection to provide for various situations. Explanation 7 is one such explanation which provides for the situation involving amalgamation which is material to the case on hand. The explanation is reproduced below

ITO 5 (2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MILLIONAIRE COMMODIITIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2012-13 The Ito-5(2)(3), M/S.Millionaire Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai A-32, Haji Allarakha Building, Vs. 3Rd , 9Th Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai [Pan : Aahcm3086G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Gains chargeable to tax under Section 45 of the Act are, defined to be income. The amounts received on issue of share capital including the premium is undoubtedly on capital account. Share premium have been made taxable by a legal fiction under Section 56(2)(viib

DCIT 1(2)-2, MUMBAI vs. OZONELAND AGRO P.LTD, MUMBAI

gains,that the premium could not be termed as excessive or unreasonable. 3.1.With regard to business activities not being carried out during the year under consideration it was submitted before the FAA that the matter was subjudice due to “forest” M/s. Ozoneland Agro Pvt. Ltd. remark at that point of time,that the assessee could not initiate preliminary activities,that

ESSAR INVESTMENTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, additional ground No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

56(2)(viib) r.w. section 2(24)(xvi) are effective w.e.f. 1st April 2013 to tax the income in the form of excess premium received by a company on issue of shares. However, before introduction of this section, there was no provision under the Income- tax Act which provide for taxing the excess premium received by a company. Therefore