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

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

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

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) inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013 which reads as under: "(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

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

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 - 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

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

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

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

viib) so as to bring share premium within the ambit of section 56(2) of the I.T Act, 1961. Since, the proviso inserted to section 68

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

viib) so as to bring share premium within the ambit of section 56(2) of the I.T Act, 1961. Since, the proviso inserted to section 68

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)

viib) so as to bring share premium within the ambit of section 56(2) of the I.T Act, 1961. Since, the proviso inserted to section 68

VODAFONE M-PESA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME CIRCLE 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed"

Bench: Shri S. Rifaor Rahman, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1073/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

68, the test of proving the nature and source of the credit received stood accepted. 28. Now what we are required to examine whether under these facts and circumstances Assessing Officer after invoking the deeming 44 I.T.A. No. 10731Mum/2018 & 2032/Mum/2019 Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd. provision of Section 56(2)(vii) could have determined the fair market value

DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. FINPROJECT INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4860/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

Section 56(2)(viib) has no applicability as the assessee received consideration for issuance of shares from non-resident entities. The learned CIT(A) held that treating share premium received by the assessee as income is not justifiable even u/s 68