ACIT, CIRCLE 25(1), NEW DELHI vs. BLOGMINT DIGITAL PRIVATE LIMITED (AMALGAMATED IN M/S TO THE NEW PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3150/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 August 20263 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's computation regarding Section 115BBE, referencing a High Court judgment that clarified its applicability from April 1, 2017. The appeal was dismissed due to insufficient tax effect as per CBDT circular.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the deletion of an addition of Rs. 1,80,97,920/- made under Section 68 for share premium and capital. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, and the Revenue challenged this, also questioning the applicability of Section 115BBE.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition under Section 68 was correctly deleted by the CIT(A) and if Section 115BBE was applicable for the assessment year in question.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 115BBE,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Sapra, FCA
For Respondent: Ms. Beenu, Sr. DR
Hearing: 27.07.2026Pronounced: 05.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3150/Del/2026 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18) ACIT, Blogmint Digital Private Limited Circle-25(1), (Amalgamated in M/s To The Delhi. Vs. New Pvt. Ltd.), C-763, Old Mathura Road, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110025. PAN-AAGCB3837M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Sanjiv Sapra, FCA Department by Ms. Beenu, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 27.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 05.08.2026 O R D E R PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ in short], in Appeal No. CIT(A), Delhi- 2/10297/2019-20 dated 07.01.2026 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in holding that addition of Rs.1,80,97,920/- made u/s 68 w.r.t. share premium & share capital is beyond 'limited scrutiny reason' flagged without appreciating that the reasons flagged under 'limited scrutiny clearly mentioned or any other relevant section" (screenshot attached in paper book), which AO missed inadvertently mentioning in the assessment order?

2 ITA No.3150/Del/2026

2.

Whether the CIT(A) is right in deleting the addition made u/s 68 despite assessee not being able to discharge onus casted upon it w.r.t. the genuineness and creditworthiness of the alleged investor. 3. Whether the CIT(A) is right in deleting the addition made w/s 68 ignoring the facts discussed by AO in para 2.3 of this assessment order and law position as discussed in para 2.4 of the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 27/11/2019. 4. Whether Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in admitting additional evidence violation of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal.”

3.

Heard both the parties and perused the case records. At the outset it is observed that the Revenue has challenged the action of ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of INR 1,80,97,920/- made u/s 68 of the Act towards the share capital including premium received during the year which is liable to be taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act @ 60%. Claim of the assessee was that the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act are applicable from AY 2018-19 and the year before us is 2017-18 and if the tax is calculated at the normal rates of tax @30% as against 60% applied by AO, the tax effect would be 59,83,720/- which is inclusive of surcharge @ 7% and Education Cess @ 3%. The Ld. Sr. DR, submits that the ld. AO has computed the same at Rs. 1,39,80,640/- by applying tax rate of 60%, surcharges @ 25% and Cess @3% as provided u/s 115BBE of the Act. However, we find no merit in the above computation, once Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of SMILE Microfinance Ltd. v. ACIT in WP(MD) No. 2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020 dated 19.11.2024 (Mad.) has already settled the issue that Section 115BBE applies on transactions on or after 01.04.2017 only. We thus conclude that going by the consequential tax effect computation the Revenue’s instant appeal is hit by the CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024 on account of lower than the prescribed tax effect of less than Rs. 60 lakhs, as per normal provisions.

3 ITA No.3150/Del/2026

4.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order is pronounced in the Open Court 05.08. 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (MANISH AGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 05.08.2026 *PK, Sr. Ps* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →