Dismissing the appeal the Court held that  the shares had come into existence only when the allotment was made by the company as rights shares cannot be said to be “received from any person”. The shares which had been allotted to the assessee were not “received from any person” which was the fundamental requirement for invoking section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act. In other words, the property must pre-exist for application of section 56(2)(vii)(c), which is clear from the intention of the Legislature. Regarding the issue of 82,200 shares, the names of the wife and father of the assessee would also not be hit by the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act as both of them would be covered by the definition of “relative” covered in the exemption of relative, and therefore, the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c) would not be applicable at all. With regard to the application of section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act for the balance 14,800 shares allotted to the assessee as a result of third party shareholder declining to apply for rights shares in favour of the assessee, the Tribunal held against the assessee because renunciation of rights in favour of the assessee by the third party who was not related would lead to disproportionate allocation of shares in favour of the assessee. The findings recorded about valuation of shares to Rs. 205.55 were concurrent findings of fact which did not require any interference. The Commissioner (Appeals) had rightly computed the fair market value on the basis of the balance-sheet which was available on record for the previous year and which was approved in the annual general meeting.(AY.2013-14)