DCIT CIRCLE-15 (3), MUMBAI vs. M/S RANKIN INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 2 and 3 raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Circle – 15(3)(1) V. M/S. Rankin Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 451, 4Th Floor Next To Classic Marble Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Subash Nagar Road, Bhandup (E) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai -400078 Pan: Aafcs5275B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal Department By : Shri T. Shankar

2)(viib). 2.29) In this regard, it is also pertinent to refer to the arguments made by the learned AO at para 4.1.3 of the order passed u/s 143(3). Here the learned AO has argued that the taxability of income on receipt basis is provided in section 68 as against section 56

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68", "Section 147", "Section 2(24)", "Section 56(2)(viib)", "Section 106" ], "issues": "Whether the addition

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

68 of the Act. The material furnished by the assessee during the course of reassessment proceedings was not properly scrutinized by the AO. Further, the CIT (A) and Tribunal decided the case without examining the information submitted before them by the assessee. In this context, it was held by the High Court that the CIT (A) and Tribunal ought

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act", "Section 147 of the Income Tax Act", "Section 148 of the Income Tax Act" ], "issues": "Whether the additions made by the AO on account of share premium under Section 68 and Section 56

HUMUZA CONSULTANTS,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. CIT-19, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Humuza Consultants Vs The Principal Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Wokhardt Towers Income-Tax-19, Mumbai Bandra Kurla Complex Room No. 228, 2Nd Floor, Bandra East Matru Mandir Mumbai-400 01 Tardeo Road, Pan : Aahfh9240E Mumbai-400 007 Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Jd Mistry & Hiten Chande Respondent By Shri K.K. Mishra (Cit,Dr) Date Of Hearing 07-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement 07-01-2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi (Am):

68 of the Act, if the transaction is not found to be a valid gift. Therefore, he directed the assessing officer to make a fresh assessment after giving an opportunity to the assessee and examination of the evidence submitted in the claim. Thus, order under section 263 of the Act was passed on 09/03/2021. The assessee is aggrieved with

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

viib) was inserted w.e.f. 1 April 2013 to tax the excess of consideration over the fair value where the receipt of consideration for issue of shares by a private company exceeds the face value of shares issued subject to certain exclusions. sub section 2 clause (x) was inserted w.e.f. 1 April 2017 to tax the receipt of money

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

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

sections": [ "68", "56(2)(viib)", "147", "2(18)(b)(B)", "36(1)" ], "issues": "Whether the addition on account of share

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

56(2)(viib) of the Act has no application to the hybrid instrument issued by the assessee company, the hybrid instrument are in the nature of debt cum preference shares (which is not equity shares) is outside the definition of equity shares. We notice that the Ld. Pr. CIT observed in his order that the assessee has received the premium

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

56(2)(viib)", "2(18)(b)(B)" ], "issues": "1. Whether the reopening of assessment under section 147 was valid. 2. Whether the addition on account of share premium under section 68

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

sections": [ "68", "37", "56(2)(viib)", "147" ], "issues": "1. Whether the addition of share premium under Section 68

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

68 for treating the premium amount as unexplained on\nthe reason that premium amount is not justified. To tax such such\npremium amount on account of valuation more that the fair market\nvalue statute has brought section 56(2)(viia)/(viib

DIRECT MEDIA DISTRIBUTION VENTURES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO , RG-6(2)(3)(PRESENT IN CHARGE ACIR-RG-6(2)(2), 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) :

68 in respect of share premium receipt from its holding company. 19. Thereafter, Ld. CIT(A) further went to analyse and held that, in so far as fair value of the shares are concerned, there was no provision in the Act prior to insertion of Section 56(2)(viib

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) :

68 in respect of share premium receipt from its holding company. 19. Thereafter, Ld. CIT(A) further went to analyse and held that, in so far as fair value of the shares are concerned, there was no provision in the Act prior to insertion of Section 56(2)(viib

NARANG ACCESS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY NARANG DANONE ACCESS PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 13(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri M Balaganesh, Am

68,570/- as income from other sources under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act by observing in Para

DREAMS DWELLERS LLP(AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF MEGACORP DEVELOPERS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT -24(1) (EARLIER ACIT CIR 10(1)(1), MUMBAI), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dreams Dwellers Llp (As Legal Acit-24(1) (Earlier Acit Cir 10(1)(1) Representative Of Megacorp Mumbai), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai) Room No. 604, 6Th Floor, Piramal 702, Natraj, Mv Road, Junction W E Chambers Parel, Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400069. Pan No. Aafcm 0366 B Appellant Respondent

viib) of the Act r.w. clause (c) of f the Act r.w. clause (c) of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 11UA of the Income Rule (1) of Rule 11UA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Under tax Rules, 1962. Under the said Rule, the fair market value of unquoted shares and the said Rule, the fair market value of unquoted

MUKUND SUMI METAL PROCESSING LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

56(2)(viib). Accordingly, notice under section 263 was issued with assessee as under: 'From the case records, it is evident that M/s Mukand Limited and M/s Sumitomo Corporation. Japan, have formed a joint venture for the manufacture of bright bars and wires in India Mukund Ltd and Sumitomo. Japan will carry out the business 3 through the assessee

DCIT-CC 5(2), CENTRAL RANGE 5, MUMBAI vs. M/S JET PRIVILEGE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

56(2)(viib) towards transaction with the other two resident shareholders. However, the CIT(A) has allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee for the reason that the transaction is genuine and that the First Proviso to section 68