Income Tax : The removal of the provision means companies and investors are no longer taxed on share premiums exceeding fair market value, crea...
Income Tax : This explains how fair market value governs taxation under multiple provisions including gifts, ESOPs, and slump sales. It highlig...
Income Tax : Courts hold that one-time alimony is a capital receipt arising from extinguishment of rights and not taxable. The ruling clarifies...
Income Tax : The article explains how violating the twin conditions under Section 50C(2) can block valuation relief and trigger taxation on hig...
Income Tax : Overview of income taxed under other sources, including dividends, winnings, interest, deemed income, forfeited advances, family p...
Income Tax : Finance Bill 2024 proposes the sunset of Section 56(2)(viib) from April 2025, eliminating the tax on shares issued above face valu...
Income Tax : Amendment to section 56(2)(viib) of Act extending the applicability of section to issue of shares to non-residents has been made a...
Income Tax : CBDT proposes changes to Rule 11UA in respect of ANGEL TAX- Also proposes to notify Excluded Entities In the Finance Act, 2023, ...
Income Tax : IMB Certificate of Eligible Business is not a pre-requisite to avail the benefits of non-application of the provisions of clause (...
Income Tax : Representation for widening the scope of benefit in case of difference in agreement price and Circle Rate of property is upto 20 p...
Income Tax : Tribunal ruled that objections relating to defective title, encroachments, and legal disputes require proper valuation examination...
Income Tax : Tribunal ruled that future projections under DCF method cannot be tested solely against later actual financial performance. It obs...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court held that grants disbursed by a statutory corporation formed part of its core business functions and qualified a...
Income Tax : Madras High Court held that time-share membership fees could not be fully taxed in the year of receipt since the assessee had cont...
Income Tax : Mumbai ITAT held that Section 56(2)(x) applies to purchase of MHADA leasehold property rights despite reliance on Section 50C ruli...
Income Tax : Notification regarding Income-tax Act Section 56(2)(viib) and assessment of Startup Companies. Clarifications for assessing recogn...
Income Tax : CBDT) amends Income Tax Rule 11UA regarding valuation of unquoted equity shares for tax purposes. Learn about changes in this amen...
Income Tax : Details of Sixteenth Amendment to Income Tax Rules (2023) on computation of income chargeable under life insurance policies as per...
Income Tax : In the Finance Act, 2023, an amendment was introduced in this provision to bring the consideration received from non-residents wit...
Income Tax : CBDT issued Notification No. 29/2023- Income-Tax specifying certain classes of persons for the purpose of sub-clause (ii) of th...
ITAT Mumbai held that as per the provisions of 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act if the date of agreement fixing the consideration and date of registration are not in same, the stamp duty value may be taken as on the date of agreement fixing the consideration, instead of that on the date of registration.
As per explanation a to section 56 (2)(viib) of Income Tax Act it has been specifically provided that fair market value of shares shall be based on (1) value determined under rule 11UA or (2) fair market value of under lying assets whichever is higher.
Kheer Bhawani Trading P. Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) On behalf of the assessee it was submitted that assessee had merely issued preferential shares and as for the purpose of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, the Rule 11UA (2) is not applicable. It was submitted that assessee has issued preferential shares and the valuation under […]
ITAT Chennai held that provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act doesnt apply when the property received under a will or by way of inheritance
ITAT Pune held that addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of Income Tax Act sustainable as assessee failed to prove that the developer had agreed to share its developed area; which in turn, had come to the assessee from his father by way of nomination.
Mere registration at later date would not cover a transaction already executed in the earlier years and substantial obligations have already been discharged and a substantive right has accrued to the assessee therefrom.
ITAT Pune rules in favor of Sanjay Dattatraya Dapodikar. Section 56(2)(vii)(b) not applicable in 2015, stamp value on 2008 agreement considered.
Ashutosh Jha (HUF) Vs ITO (ITAT Ranchi) Where assessee purchased a property and made part payment of sale consideration by cheque on very next day of execution of purchase agreement and registry was done after a year, since such part payment made by cheque on very next day of execution of agreement was towards fulfilment […]
Mohd. Ilyas Ansari Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Assessing Officer mechanically applied provisions of section 56(2) to difference between stamp duty value and actual sale consideration paid by assessee and made additions, without making any efforts to find out actual cost of property, additions made by Assessing Officer were to be set aside. In this case […]
Sajjanraj Mehta Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) During the appellate proceedings, the appellant vide letter dated 03/04/2018 submitted that the AO has made addition ignoring the 1st and 2nd proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) inserted by Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2014. The appellant was allotted flat no. 502 in the building Kamla Astral, Dadar for a total […]
