172 ITD 629 (Chennai-Trib.) (ii) ACIT v. Subodh Menon

175 ITR 449Reported decision#23137 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 11UASection 56(2)(viib)Section 68Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

nav methoddcf methodsection 56(2)(viib)valuation of sharessection 56(2)fair market valuesection 56genuineness of the transactionprescribedpersoncompanyindia

Judgments citing 172 ITD 629 (Chennai-Trib.) (ii) ACIT v. Subodh Menon

M/S. Ambattur Developers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-1(1), Chennai

ITA 2601/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2601/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Ambattur Developers Private Limited, (Amalgamated With Ambattur Hotels Private Limited) No. 86/E2, Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai - 600 058. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaeca-7490-D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Corporate Ward- 1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : Shri. Bipin, C.N., Cit सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025 : 11.11.2025 आदेश /Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Nfac, Delhi, (In Short Ld.Cit(A)) For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Vide Order Dated 12.08.2024. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: :-2-:

For Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

…on 56(2)(viib) of the Act is against main objective of the said section and hence we hold it is incorrectly invoked. 9.3 In support of the above contentions reliance was placed upon the following decisions: (i) ACIT v. Subodh Menon (2019) 103 taxmann.com 15 / 175 ITR 449; :-9-: ITA. No: 2601/Chny/2024 (ii) IPSAA Holdings (P .) Ltd v. ACIT [2025] 176 taxmann.com 823 (Delhi - Trib) (iii) Sadhvi Securities (P.) Ltd v. Asstt. CIT [2019] 109 taxmann.com 245/179 ITD 197 (iv) Clearview Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 114 taxmann.com 167 (Del- Trib.). 8 ITA.No.2720/DEL/2023 9.4 We also find that in IPSAA Holdings (P.)…

Income Tax Officer, New Delhi vs. Ninecube Technologies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3186/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 11USection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

…1 A.Y. 2016-17 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Vs Ninecube Technologies Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. C-112, Defence Colony, New Delhi- 110024. PAN: AACCN 6458 J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv.; & Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv.; & Shri Saksham Agarwal, CA Department represented by Shri Manoj Tiwari, Sr. DR Date of hearing 29.07.2025 Date of pronouncement O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M: This appeal, preferred by the Revenue f…

Ipsaa Holdings Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle 4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2720/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 56

…o hinder the genuine and bonafide business transactions. In this regard, he relied on the following case laws :- (i) Vaani Estates (P) Ltd. vs. ITO – (2018) 98 taxmann.com 92 / 172 ITD 629 (Chennai-Trib.) (ii) ACIT vs. Subodh Menon (2019) 103 taxmann.com 15 / 175 ITR 449; (iii) Clearview Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (2020) 114 taxmann.com 167 (Del-Trib.). 8 9. He further submitted that the Assessing Officer cannot substitute NAV method in place of DCF and relied on the following cases :- (i) Cinestaan Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (2019) 106 taxmann.com 300 (Del.-Trib.); (ii) Rameshwaram Strong Glass Pvt. Ltd.…

172 ITD 629 (Chennai-Trib.) (ii) ACIT v. Subodh Menon (175 ITR 449) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax