TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Assessee gets fresh chance to prove public company exemption from Section 56(2)(viib) addition</h1> <h3>Genesis Developers and Holdings Limited. Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (4), New Delhi</h3> The ITAT Delhi allowed the appeal for AY 2015-16 regarding an addition of Rs. 29,05,01,000 under section 56(2)(viib) for alleged failure to support ... Addition u/s 56(2)(viib) - assessee’s failed in supporting the alleged extraordinary premium of Rs. 90 per unit in the course of assessment framed - assessee has invited our attention to its written submissions filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC claiming itself as the public limited company in which public is substantially interested than a private company under section 56(2)(viib) to buttress the point that the impugned addition has been wrongly made in its hands HELD THAT:- We are of the considered view that once the assessee has raised the instant legal argument, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the same back to the AO for his afresh appropriate adjudication thereof in light of all the relevant facts within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the taxpayer shall plead and prove the case at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. The Appellate Tribunal (ITAT Delhi) in the appeal for AY 2015-16 addressed the addition under section 56(2)(viib) of Rs. 29,05,01,000/- made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by lower authorities, relating to alleged failure to support an extraordinary premium of Rs. 90 per unit. The assessee contended that it is a 'public limited company in which public is substantially interested,' thus exempt from such addition under section 56(2)(viib). The Revenue did not dispute the absence of any specific rejection of this plea in the assessment or appellate orders. The Tribunal held that since the legal argument was raised but not adjudicated upon, 'it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the same back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication thereof,' allowing three opportunities to the assessee to plead and prove the claim 'at his own risk and responsibility.' The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
