https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66119 The Tribunal held that the differential price from preferential share allotment did not constitute income under section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, as it was a conceptual benefit with the real advantage being potential future capital gains. The valuation method used was appropriate, and as no benefit arose from the allotment, interest charges under sections 234B and 234C were not applicable. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were deemed unsustainable, resulting in the appeals of the assessees being allowed, and the assessments were directed to be modified accordingly. en-us Mon, 29 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Feb 2011 16:29:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66119 The Tribunal held that the differential price from preferential share allotment did not constitute income under section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, as it was a conceptual benefit with the real advantage being potential future capital gains. The valuation method used was appropriate, and as no benefit arose from the allotment, interest charges under sections 234B and 234C were not applicable. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were deemed unsustainable, resulting in the appeals of the assessees being allowed, and the assessments were directed to be modified accordingly. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 29 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66119