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 : Detailed analysis of Chandarani N. Goyal Vs ITO case where Mumbai ITAT ruled that money received as a security deposit, if refunde...
Income Tax : Explore ITAT Chennai's ruling in Smt. Chandrasekaran Valarmathi vs. ITO case. Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act won'...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai held that disallowance of expenditure towards helper allowance claimed as deduction u/s. 10(14)(i) of the Income Tax ...
Income Tax : Explore the ITAT Mumbai decision in Rekha Singh vs ITO, directing the consideration of stamp duty value on the date of allotment f...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that addition u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act on account of difference between circle rate and actual amo...
ITAT Ahmedabad held that revisional power under section 263 of the Income Tax Act correctly invoked as AO failed to examine the issue of purchase of land in the light of provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act Act which were introduced in the Act by Finance Act, 2010 cannot be given retrospective effect.
Budget 2023 brings non-resident investors within the ambit of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act to eliminate tax avoidance possibilities.
Bharat Keshavlal Shah Vs PCIT (ITAT Pune) Lastly comes the issue of section 56(2)(vii) made applicable in assessee’s case on account of alleged difference between stamp valuation and actual purchase consideration qua the sale deed executed in the relevant previous year. A perusal of the said sale deed dated 31.12.2013, and more particularly, the schedule […]
ITAT held that provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of are applicable only in cases where purchased share become property in the hands of buyer company and, if shares are of any other company.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that civil suit is filed before the Hon’ble District Judge accordingly the matter is squarely covered as exception as per proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the act and accordingly we hold that there is no case for invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b).
