TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1882
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Income Tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as, "the Act". Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 2. For the reasons stated in the assessee's/Revenue's condonation averments, delay of 273 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3. It transpires during the course of hearing that the first and foremost substantive ground challenges both the learned lower authorities' assessment and lower appellate findings making section 56(2)(viib) addition of Rs. 33,91,50,000/- as allegedly representing the excessive component of premium received on issuance of shares. We make it clear that the impugned sum has admittedly come ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om 192/189 ITD 476 (Ahd. -Trib.) in the context of section 56(2)(viib) has analyzed the deeming provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act threadbare and inter alia observed that the deeming clause requires to be given a schematic interpretation. The transaction of allotment of shares at a premium in the instant case is between holding company and it is subsidiary company and thus when seen holistically, there is no benefit derived by the assessee by issue of shares at certain premium notwithstanding that the share premium exceeds a fair market value in a given case. Instinctively, it is a transaction between the self, if so to say. The true purport of section 56(2)(viib) was analyzed in Ozone India Ltd.'s case (supra) and it was obse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd wholly owned subsidiary in the absence of any benefit occuring to any outsider. 12. Preliminary enquiry, if undertaken, by Pr.CIT would have thus possibly changed the discourse in the present case. 13. As regards inquiry on the parameters of section 68 is concerned, it is the case of the assessee that the money/credit has been entered in the books of the assessee in preceeding Assessment Year 2013-14 and therefore, section 68 itself is not applicable qua AY 2014-15 in question. This notwithstanding, money has been received from holding company carrying substantial business activities and getting assessed year after year. On an enquiry from the Bench, the ld. counsel placed the assessment order dated 30.12.2019 passed by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 9,60,09,12,500/- as convertible into equity shares of Rs. 10 each. He further invites the tribunal's attention to the debenture subscription agreement(s) and the relevant certificates at pages 109 to 117 of the paperbook which has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. We thus conclude in this factual backdrop that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in invoking section 56 (2)(viib) addition in the assessee's hands both for non-issuance of shares as well as for want of applicable of the statutory provision itself herein. The impugned addition stands deleted therefore. 6. Next comes the second substantive issue between the parties wherein the assessee seeks to reverse both the learned lower authorities act....