Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs Jcit, Range-46, New Delhi on 11 February, 2021
Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs Jcit, Range-46, New Delhi on 11 February, 2021
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 1657 (1.24 seconds)Chandrakanta S. Juneja , Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax
value became negative and as such value of the shares was nil.
That is why shares were sold to the HUF @ Re.1/- per share ... come forward to
purchase these shares which have a zero value. Naturally shares have
been transferred within the family just to create a loss
Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs Prcit-16, New Delhi on 11 March, 2019
Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs Prcit-16, New Delhi on 11 March, 2019
1
Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India ... vs Dcit, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad on 18 February, 2025
shown market value of shares to Trent Ltd. at Rs. 500
per share whereas on 7/10/2010 the market value ... appellant submitted that as these were the bonus shares, their
value was 'Zero' and they did not appear in the trial balance. According
Jcit(Osd), Cir-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (India) ... on 18 February, 2025
shown market value of shares to Trent Ltd. at Rs. 500
per share whereas on 7/10/2010 the market value ... appellant submitted that as these were the bonus shares, their
value was 'Zero' and they did not appear in the trial balance. According
Reliance Life Sciences P.Ltd, Navi ... vs Dcit Rg 7(2), Mumbai on 30 September, 2019
said loan zero coupon was
optionally convertible into share capital at any time not later than
31.03.2011 at a fair value to be determined ... loan was zero coupon and was optionally convertible
into share capital at the option of the lender at a fair value to be determined
Arm Infra & Utilities Private Limited, ... vs Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax Range-6, ... on 12 November, 2021
issued share capital of ₹ 5 lakhs and no share
premium was charged on the shares. The assessee company issued
and allotted zero percent compulsory convertible ... value of the
shares, which include both equity and preference shares. According to
the Ld. Pr. CIT, the assessee has failed to justify the share
M/S.Karmic Labs Private Limited, ... vs Income Tax Officer 15(2)(1), Mumbai on 28 July, 2020
Chintalapati Holdings P.
Ltd., transferred their shares to the assessee on 04.03.2011 at Rs.75.49 per
share whereas, on the same day and also ... fair market value as per the prescribed rule according to
which, the fair market value of the share is less than Re. zero and hence
M/S. Simpson Unitech Wireless (P) Ltd., ... vs Ito, New Delhi on 8 November, 2019
telecom companies
had allotted shares at a higher rate, the shares sold by
assessee had a higher value per share as a result of licenses ... taxable on the ground that subsequently fair market value of
shares has been reduced to zero. This is a subsequent event
which cannot affect taxability
Ganjam Trading Company Private Limited ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 16 November, 2018
zero balance company asking
for premium of Rs 490/- per share with a face value of Rs 10/- defies
commercial prudence. Nevertheless it had concluded ... zero balance one. In
these circumstances, there would be all the more reason for not charging
to tax the share premium collected by the appellant