Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Shri K.Srikanth, Chennai vs Acit, Chennai on 19 May, 2020 आयकर अपील य अ

invocable only when the consideration for issue of shares exceeds the face value of shares and not when they are issued at face value ... face value of shares issued. 9. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) having accepted that the shares have been allotted at face value

closely held companies for funds received from shareholders, and taxation of share premium in excess of fair market value. :-8-: ITA. No: 2601/Chny/2024 ... valuation is not acceptable to them. The major subscriber to the shares is the holding company Ambattur Clothing Limited. The present investment seems to have

M/S Deolite Haskins & Sells, Chennai vs Acit Non Corp Circle 1 (1) Formerly

impugned assessment year as unexplained share capital u/s.68. 4. For that the provisions of Section68 are not invocable in the facts and circumstances

addition as a legal ground. It was submitted that the shares of the assessee company were acquired by Manappuram Finance Limited- a public limited company ... rests upon invocation of provisions of 56(2)(viib). We have also noted that by virtue of acquisition of its shares by the Manapuram Finance

income not forming part of the total income, from investment in shares, following the decision in Cheminvest ... shall preclude invocation of s. 14A . At the same time, however, the expenditure, if any, incurred in relation to the investment in shares

assessee sold 23082 shares to Manhattan Venture Partners (MVP) at Rs.2274/- per share whereas the assessee sold 31405 shares to Norwest Venture Partner (Norwest ... shares at Rs.31.40 per share which was much lesser than the price realized by the assessee. However, Ld. AO proposed invocation

year under consideration the assessee company had issued rights share of Rs.27,14,286 shares each to its two holding companies namely ... consequently earned share premium of Rs.32,57,14,320/-. The Ld. AO had queried about feasibility of invocation of Rule

sale consideration (113rd share of the appellant) which has been duly disclosed. Further, AO has also contested the invocation of section