PROTON POSITIVE HEALTH CARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE -16(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 812/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 December 2025AY 2016-17Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member), Shri Ravish Sood (Judicial Member)16 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 56(2)(viib) for share premium was unsustainable as the transaction was between a holding and subsidiary company. Consequently, the penalty related to this addition was also vacated.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against a penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-compliance. The penalty was levied on additions made by the AO regarding sundry creditors and share premium.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is sustainable when the primary addition invoking Section 56(2)(viib) is found to be legally invalid. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 56(2)(viib)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(5)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, Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Sood

Hearing: 19/11/2025

PER. RAVISH SOOD, J.M: The present appeal filed by the assessee company is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (for short, “CIT(A)”) dated 07/03/2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “AO”) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) dated 28/06/2019 for AY 2016-17. The assessee has assailed the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) on the following grounds of appeal before us:

“1. The learned CIT (Appeals) is erred in facts and law while passing th

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 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →