DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAX HOSPITALS AND ALLIED SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 3083/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 August 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. It found that the valuation of shares was based on recognized methods and the Revenue failed to demonstrate any fundamental error. Regarding depreciation, the Tribunal held that the deposit for hospital management rights constituted an intangible asset eligible for depreciation, citing High Court precedents.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) concerning security premium received by the assessee and disallowance of depreciation on a deposit paid for hospital management rights. The AO had treated the security premium as income under Section 56(2)(viib) and disallowed depreciation on the deposit, considering it not an intangible asset.

What were the issues?

Whether the security premium received by the assessee was correctly treated as income under Section 56(2)(viib) and whether the deposit paid for hospital management rights qualified as an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(viib),Section 32(1)(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(6)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE

Hearing: 05/08/2025Pronounced: 11/08/2025

Heard together (3 matters)

I.T.A. No. 3083/Mum/2025
I.T.A. No. 3084/Mum/2025
I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: I.T.A. No. 3083/Mum/2025, I.T.A. No. 3084/Mum/2025, I.T.A.

No. 3085/Mum/2025 are three separate appeals by the revenue preferred against three separate orders of NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter ‘the ld. CIT(A)’] pertaining to AY 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19. 2. Since common grievance is involved in the captioned appeals, they were heard together and are disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and bre

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 56(2)(viib)

All 746 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(viib) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →