Income Tax : Explore the implications of the PCIT Vs I.A. Hydro Energy case regarding loan conversion to equity under Section 56(2)(viib) of th...
Income Tax : The issue involves a subscription amount of Rs. 1 Crores, with a dividend rate of 0.10% over a tenure of 20 years. This brief exam...
Income Tax : Unlock the complexities of development rights and their tax implications under India's Income Tax Act, 1961. Delve into Section 56...
Income Tax : Budget 2023 brings non-resident investors within the ambit of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act to eliminate tax avoidance possibilit...
Income Tax : Thereafter, PCIT called for the assessment records and examined the proceedings. CIT(A) after going through the case records and a...
Income Tax : Assessee, aggrieved by the decision, appealed to the CIT (Appeals), who dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of AO. Assess...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that the interest on compensation or on enhanced compensation cannot be considered as compensation and shall be ch...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act justified due to difference stamp duty value of the...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowance under section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act sustained due to wide fluctuation in value o...
Thereafter, PCIT called for the assessment records and examined the proceedings. CIT(A) after going through the case records and assessment records took a view that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
Assessee, aggrieved by the decision, appealed to the CIT (Appeals), who dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of AO. Assessee dissatisfied with the order of CIT(A) appealed before Tribunal.
ITAT Delhi held that the interest on compensation or on enhanced compensation cannot be considered as compensation and shall be chargeable to tax under the head income from other sources. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act justified due to difference stamp duty value of the property and sale consideration. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee allowed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowance under section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act sustained due to wide fluctuation in value of share within a period of less than 5 months and that too within same financial year without accurate explanation.
Kerala High Court held that considering merits of the matter while deciding application for condonation of delay for filing revised returns not justified.
ITAT Lucknow ruled that additions under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) are unsustainable without a valuation officer’s reference, directing deletion of ₹2.14 crore addition.
ITAT Kolkata held that when date of agreement and date of registration are not same, then, stamp duty value on the date of agreement should be considered. Accordingly, since difference is less than 10%, hence addition u/s. 56(2)(vii) unjustified.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the entire proceedings under Section 263 of the Act were initiated and completed by the PCIT within a period of only 12 days without pointing out reason for lack of enquiry unjustified. Accordingly, matter restored back.
Detailed analysis of DCIT vs Tangi Facility Solutions Pvt Ltd case by ITAT Chennai regarding taxation of bonus shares under Income Tax Act. Understand ITAT’s ruling and implications.
