Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal Rules on Applicability of Section 56 for Rights Shares, Upholds Share Valuation, Dismisses Appeals.</h1> <h3>The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Ahmadabad Versus Jigar Jashwantlal Shah</h3> The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Ahmadabad Versus Jigar Jashwantlal Shah - [2024] 460 ITR 628 (Guj) Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Valuation of shares for tax purposes.Summary:Issue 1: Applicability of Section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961The primary issue was whether Section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could be invoked for the allocation of shares to the assessee. The Tribunal considered three scenarios:1. 1,03,000 Rights Shares Proportionate to Shareholding: The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(vii)(c) could not be invoked as the shares were allotted proportionate to the existing shareholding. The shares were not 'received from any person,' which is a fundamental requirement for invoking this section. The Tribunal relied on the decisions in Sudhir Menon (HUF) vs. A.C.I.T, Mumbai, and Ms. Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia vs. CIT, among others, to conclude that there was no disproportionate allotment of shares, thus no addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(c) would arise.2. 82,200 Shares from Renunciation by Wife and Father: The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(vii)(c) could not be invoked for the additional shares received due to the renunciation by the assessee's wife and father. Both are classified as 'relatives,' which are excluded from the purview of this section. The Tribunal relied on the principle that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly, referencing cases like Kumar Pappu Singh v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax.3. 14,800 Shares from Third-Party Renunciation: The Tribunal held against the assessee, stating that the renunciation of rights by third parties who are not related leads to a disproportionate allocation of shares, thus invoking Section 56(2)(vii)(c).Issue 2: Valuation of Shares for Tax PurposesThe Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to value the shares at Rs. 205.55 per share, instead of Rs. 255 per share as determined by the Assessing Officer. The valuation was based on the book value as of 31.03.2012 and the additional consideration received from the issuance of new shares. The Tribunal referenced cases like ACIT Vs. Y. Venkanna Choudary and Sadhvi Securities (P) Ltd v. Asstt. CIT to support this valuation method.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that Section 56(2)(vii)(c) does not apply to the proportionate allocation of rights shares or to shares received from relatives. However, it does apply to shares received from third-party renunciations. The valuation of shares at Rs. 205.55 per share was upheld. Consequently, no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's judgment, and the appeals were dismissed.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found