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 : The issue was whether a notice granting less than the statutory minimum time is valid. The tribunal held that giving less than 7 d...
Income Tax : The case addresses whether reassessment is valid when approval is granted by the wrong authority. ITAT held that sanction under Se...
Income Tax : The Tribunal dismissed the challenge to reassessment proceedings as no arguments were presented by the assessee. The ruling highli...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held the assessment invalid as no mandatory notice under Section 143(2) was issued. The key takeaway is that absence ...
Income Tax : The case examined whether share premium could be taxed without proof of unaccounted funds. The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(vi...
ITAT Kolkata held that AO failed to make required enquiries to go into the question of valuation of shares given by the accountant for the purpose of assessment of income as per provisions of section 56(2)(viib). Accordingly, revisionary power under section 263 rightly invoked.
ITAT Mumbai held that as per first proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b), where date of agreement fixing amount of consideration for transfer of property and ate of registration is not same, the stamp duty value on the date of allotment is to be taken.
Vinit Kumar Vs DCIT – ITAT Delhi clarified the application of Section 56(2)(vii) on properties purchased for more than the circle rate.
ITAT Indore held that the deeming fiction created in section 50C cannot be extended to the provision of section 69 or 69B or any other of the Act in the case of purchaser to make the purchaser liable for tax.
ITAT Surat held that gift received from HUF cannot be added back to the total income of the assessee being Karta (Manager) of such HUF.
ITAT Delhi held that discounted cash flow method is the recognized method as per section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act read with rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules.
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 […]
