Agra Portfolio Pvt Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Another

Q: How many judgments cite Agra Portfolio Pvt Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Another?

11 judgments on BharatTax cite Agra Portfolio Pvt Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Another (464 ITR 348), spanning 2024 to 2025.

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Agra Portfolio Pvt Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Another come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 11UA, Section 143(3), Section 56(2)(viib), Section 147, Section 148, Section 151.

464 ITR 348High Court2024#9811 most cited

What is Agra Portfolio Pvt Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Another authority for?

Income under section 56(2)(viib) cannot be added by rejecting the assessee's valuation report if the AO fails to provide fresh tangible material. Reassessment proceedings initiated without proper basis are invalid.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Agra Portfolio Pvt Limited · section 56(2)(viib) · section 147 · section 148 · section 151 · valuation of shares · DCF method · NAV method · fair market value · reassessment · rejection of valuation report · fresh tangible material

Sections most often in play

Section 11UA Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 147 Section 148 Section 151 Section 271(1)(C)Section 131

Issues it is cited on

nav method dcf method section 55a section 13(2)valuation of shares section 56(2)(viib)approval under section 151 commercial rights fresh tangible material section 143(3a)section 56(2)date of transfer

Judgments citing Agra Portfolio Pvt Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Another

Intermesh Shopping Network Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 12(3), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1579/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarintermesh Shopping Network Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, Lower Ground Unit No. 1-06, Ward-12(3), Boomerang, Chandivali Farmroad, Delhi Chandivali, Mumbai-400072 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaci7990L

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Dhawan, Adv (VC)For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

…ra Portfolio Private Limited vs ITO in ITA No. 2189 /Del/ 2018 dated 16-05-2018 in support of the contentions of the learned AO. But it is pertinent to note that the said decision has been reversed by the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court which is reported in 464 ITR 348 (Del) dated 4-04-2024. We further find that the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs Cinestaan Entertainment Private Limited reported in 433 ITR 82 (Del) dated 1-03- 2021. 8. Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial precedent, we direct the Learned AO to delete the a…

JCIT(OSD), New Delhi vs. Manish Vij, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1746/DEL/2025[2022]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshjcit, Vs. Manish Vij, A-1,/ 134, 1St Floor, Sk (Osd), Delhi Enclave, South West Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aagpv7555H

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 48Section 50C

…taan Entertainment Pvt Ltd reported in 433 ITR 82. d. Decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Hometrial Buildtech Pvt. Ltd reported in 204 ITD 154. e. Decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Agra Portfolio India Ltd Vs. PCIT reported in 464 ITR 348. f. Decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of BITO-Lagertechnik Bittmann GmbH Vs. ACIT in ITA 2440/Del/2023 g. Decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Lifestyle Propbuild Pvt. Ltd reported in 155 taxmann.com 338. 8. Further, it was submitted that assessee along with representative of CGPL and along with valuers who valued shares on 22…

Income Tax Officer, New Delhi vs. Nine Plus Inftrastructure Private Limited, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4887/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Devatia, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tiwari, Sr.DR

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

…(viib) r.w.r. 11 UA of the Act as well as judicial precedents governing the subject. The Ld.Counsel also submitted that its case is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Agra Portfolio Pvt Ltd dated 04.04.2024 as at 464 ITR 348. 5.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. The principal controversy seminal to the matter is regarding the action of the Ld.AO in invoking provisions of section 56 (2)(viib) and making the impugned addition by rejecting the valuation report produced by the assessee. It is pertinent to note that the app…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi - 1 vs. M/S Bueno Foods Pvt. Ltd

ITA - 118 / 2025HC Delhi25 Apr 2025

…the Co-ordinate Bench of this court in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. Caddie Hotels Pvt Limited: ITA No. 470/2024 decided on 02.09.2024 as well as the case of Agra Portfolio Pvt Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Another: (2024) 464 ITR 348. 4. However, Mr Aggarwal, the learned counsel for the Appellant states that in terms of the said decisions, the matters were remanded to the Assessing Officer [AO] for determination of the valuation by applying the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the…

M/S Accord Mediplus Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Pune

ITA 17/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke and Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay

Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

…07 [2024]-`Gujarat HC (para 13 & 14) 3. PCIT vs. Abhirvey Projects P Ltd - ITA 618/2023 [2024]-order dated 05-04-2024-Delhi HC (para 2 to 4) and referred Cinestan Entertainment P Ltd -2021:DHC:780-DB [2021] - Delhi HC (para 13 to 15) 4. Agra Portfolio P. Ltd-464 ITR 348 [2024] - Delhi HC (para 16 to 17 & 22 to 23) 5. PCIT vs. I.A. Hydro Energy P. Ltd-163 taxmann.com 408 [2024]- (para 19 &20) 6. Shah Finlease Pvt Ltd v. DCIT-TS-927-ITAT-2024-Mum-dt. 17.12.24 7. Patel Minerals Pvt. Ltd [TS-01-ITAT-2025(JODH)] - dt. 02.01.25 12. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the or…

M/S Accord Mediplus Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Pune

ITA 16/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.13 To 17/Pun/2024

Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

…407 [2024]-`Gujarat HC (para 13 & 14) 3. PCIT vs. Abhirvey Projects P Ltd - ITA 618/2023 [2024]-order dated 05-04-2024-Delhi HC (para 2 to 4) and referred Cinestan Entertainment P Ltd -2021:DHC:780-DB [2021] - Delhi HC (para 13 to 15) 4. Agra Portfolio P. Ltd-464 ITR 348 [2024] - Delhi HC (para 16 to 17 & 22 to 23) 5. PCIT vs. I.A. Hydro Energy P. Ltd-163 taxmann.com 408 [2024]- (para 19 &20) 6. Shah Finlease Pvt Ltd v. DCIT-TS-927-ITAT-2024-Mum-dt. 17.12.24 7. Patel Minerals Pvt. Ltd [TS-01-ITAT-2025(JODH)] - dt. 02.01.25 12. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the ord…

M/S Accord Mediplus Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Pune

ITA 15/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke and Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay

Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

M/S Accord Mediplus Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Pune

ITA 14/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke and Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay

Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

M/S Accord Mediplus Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Pune

ITA 13/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke and Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay

Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

Sills Karingattil Jose, Nedumkandom vs. ITO Ward 2, Thodupuzha

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 132/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhsils Karingattil Jose Income Tax Officer Np 3/406, Karingattil Ward - 2, House, Munnar Road Thodupuzha Vs. Nedumkandom P.O. [Pan: Afopj8789C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R

Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(V)Section 250Section 50CSection 53ASection 56(2)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member Sils Karingattil Jose Income Tax Officer NP 3/406, Karingattil Ward - 2, House, Munnar Road Thodupuzha vs. Nedumkandom P.O. [PAN: AFOPJ8789C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. M. Veeramani, CA Respondent by: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 22.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 19.11.2024 O R D E R Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2016-17 arises against the CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delh…

Mim Components Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 683/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri A. Ravish Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…Tribunal in case of MobiCom Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA No. 494/Bang/2023 for A.Y. 2016-17 vide order dated 12/09/2023 and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Page 12 of 15 Court in case of Agra Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT & Anr. reported in (2024) 464 ITR 348. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. 4. It is noted that the Ld.AO found the valuation to be flawed, as the projections grossly varied with actual financial results. The Ld.AO observed that the projection was purely based on surmises and guesswork only and the valuation was far from re…