Agro Portfolio (P.) Ltd. v. ITO

94 Taxmann.com 112High Court2018#3604 most cited

What is Agro Portfolio (P.) Ltd. v. ITO authority for?

The Assessing Officer (AO) has the power to disturb the valuation of shares provided by the assessee's chartered accountant, even if Rule 11UA(2) is followed. If the AO doubts the valuation report, they are not necessarily bound to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer and can adopt a different method to determine the fair market value.

33

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,359 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Agro Portfolio v ITO · 94 Taxmann.com 112 · Section 56(2)(viib) · Rule 11UA · valuation of shares · fair market value · AO power to disturb valuation · DCF method · NAV method · commercial rights · intangible assets

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 11UASection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68Section 71

Issues it is cited on

nav methoddcf methodsection 56(2)(viib)valuation of sharescommercial rightssection 56(2)closely held companyfair market valueaccumulated profitsintangible assetsshare capital and share premiumsection 56

Judgments citing Agro Portfolio (P.) Ltd. v. ITO

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Circle-3, Ferozepur vs. Measage Om Sons Marketing Private Limited, Faridkot

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 407/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 37(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.407/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 JCIT, (OSD), Circle-3, Vs. M/s Om Sons Marketing Ferozepur. Pvt. Ltd. Quila Chowk, Faridkot (Punjab) (Appellant) [PAN: -AAACO8962E] (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Respondent by Sh. S. R. Kaushik,CIT.DR Date of Hearing 21.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement 07.07.2023 ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the revenue was filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal…

Punyah Building Materials Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6171/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 251Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…1 Punyah Building Materials Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH : “F” NEW DELHI ] BEFORE DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 6171/DEL/2019 (A.Y 2015-16) Punyah Building Materials Pvt. ITO Ltd. Vs. Ward-2(1), 1002, Shiv Colony, Near Talab, Faridabad, Haryana Old Faridabad, Faridabad (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAGCP8742B (APPELLANT) Appellant by Shri Rajiv Saxena, Adv, Ms. Sumangla Saxena Adv & Sh. Shyam Sunder, Adv Respondent by Shri Sanjay Nargas, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 01.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement 19.01.2023 ORDER PER YOGESH KU…

Abhirvey Projects Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-1(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9400/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bhagwati Charan, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.9400/DEL/2019 Assessment Year 2015-16 Abhirvey Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT, 74, Basement Back Portion, Poorvi Circle-1(2), Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AALCA9390F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Mohit Gupta, CA Shri Naveen Kumar, CA Respondent by: Shri Bhagwati Charan, Sr.DR Date of hearing: 25 11 2022 Date of pronouncement: 27 12 2022 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeal has been filed…

Archer Hospitality Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-3(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 8387/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryasstt. Yr: _2015-16

Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Yr: _2015-16 M/s Archer Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner of 401, Fourth Floor, Incomes-tax, Circle-3(1), Square One Mall, New Delhi. C-2, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017 PAN-AAGCA0331B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Manish Jain, CA Department represented by Sh. Kanav Bali, Sr. DR Date of hearing 12.10.2022 Date of pronouncement 28.11.2022 O R D E R PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, JM: This appeal has been preferred…

Shri Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur

ITA 126/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. Prathviraj Meena (CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 6(3)(ii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 126/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 cuke Shri Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. Principal Commissioner of Vs. D-44, Subhash Marg C- Scheme, Income Tax-2, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAKCS 1090B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &…

M/S. Gaurav Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Baroda vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Vadodara

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1592/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 250(6)Section 56(2)(viib)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Ms. Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2016-17 M/s. Gaurav Hotels Pvt. The Income Tax Ltd. Pratapgunj Road, Officer, Near S.T. Bus Stand, Vs Ward-1(1)(3), Vadodara-390002 Ahmedabad PAN No: AAACG7191B (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by : Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 23-02-2022 Date of pronouncement : 25 -02-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- The present…

M/S. Fortigo Network Logistics Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2174/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri G.S. Prashanth, A.RFor Respondent: Sri M.K. Biju, D.R
Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…ITA No.2174/Bang/2019 M/s. Fortigo Network Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s. Fortigo Network Logistics Pvt. Ltd. No.17, Agies Building, 1st A Cross, 5th Block Koramangala Vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(1) Bengaluru 560 095 Bengaluru PAN NO : AACCF6637K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri G.S. Prashanth, A.R. Respondent by : Sri M.K. Biju, D.R. Date of Hearing : 13.01.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 01.02.2022 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOU…

M/S. Town Essential Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 7, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 139/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Town Essential Private Limited, Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax 54/1, Industrial Suburb, (Appeals)-7, Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 022. Pan : Aabct 4200 D Appellant Respondent Appellant By : None (Adjournment Request Refused) Respondent By : Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2021 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–7, Bangalore, Dated 29.11.2019 In Relation To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Only Issue Involved In The Appeal Is As To Whether The Revenue Authorities Were Justified In Invoking Provisions Of Section 56(2)(Viib) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) & Bringing To Tax The Difference Between The Fair Market Value & The Issue Price Of Shares At A Premium As Income Of The Assessee. Section 21 Clause (B) Of Finance Act, 2012 Introduced Sec.56(2)(Viib) Of The Act With Effect From The 1St Day Of April, 2013 & The Said Provisions Reads Thus:-

For Appellant: None (Adjournment request refused)For Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10Section 14Section 21Section 56(2)(viib)

…isturb the valuation of the chartered accountant furnished by the Assessee substantiating the fair market value. The ld. CIT(A) also relied on the decision of ITAT, Delhi in the case of Agro Portfolio (P) Ltd Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), New Delhi (2018) 94 Taxmann.com 112 (Delhi-Trib), wherein it was held as follows:- “15. In these circumstances, we are unable to accept the contentions of the assessee that in view of the provisions under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act read with Rule 11UA(2) of the Rules the Ld. AO had no jurisdiction to adopt a different method than the one adopted by the assessee, and if…

M/S. Taaq Music Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 161/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Balram R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10Section 14Section 21Section 56(2)(viib)

…isturb the valuation of the chartered accountant furnished by the Assessee substantiating the fair market value. The ld. CIT(A) also relied on the decision of ITAT, Delhi in the case of Agro Portfolio (P) Ltd Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), New Delhi (2018) 94 Taxmann.com 112 (Delhi-Trib), wherein it was held as follows:- “15. In these circumstances, we are unable to accept the contentions of the assessee that in view of the provisions under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act read with Rule 11UA(2) of the Rules the Ld. AO had no jurisdiction to adopt a different method than the one adopted by the assessee, and if…

M/S Flutura Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3404/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaranita No.3404(Bang)/2018 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) M/S Flutura Business Solutions Pvt.Ltd., G-1, Gurupriya Seventh Hill, Bg 12/2/13, 4Th Cross, Iti Hbcs Layout, Bsk 3Rd Stage, Bengaluru-560 004 Pan No.Aabcf9125B Appellant Vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Room No.209, 2Nd Floor, Bmtc Building, Koramanagala, Bangalore Respondent Appellant By : Shri C.Ramesh, Ca Revenue By : Shri Priyadharshini Misra, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Shri C.Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadharshini Misra, Addl.CIT
Section 56(2)(viib)

…to disturb the valuation of the chartered accountant furnished by the Assessee substantiating the fair market value. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of ITAT, Delhi in the case of Agro Portfolio (P) Ltd Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), New Delhi (2018) 94 Taxmann.com 112 (Delhi-Trib), wherein it was held as follows: “15. In these circumstances, we are unable to accept the contentions of the assessee that in view of the provisions under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act read with Rule 11UA(2) of the Rules the Ld. AO had no jurisdiction to adopt a different method than the one adopted by the assessee, and if f…

Sadhvi Securities P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circler-5, New Delhi

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

ITA 1047/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Sadhvi Securities P. Ltd., Vs Acit, 13/34, Wea, Arya Samaj Road, Central Circle-5, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aahcs7130D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.P. Gupta & Shri Anunav Kumar, Advocates Revenue By : Shri S.S. Rana, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.07.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15Th January, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-24, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Share Trading. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 27.11.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.910/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noted That The Assessee Has Introduced Share Capital By Issuing 1800000 Equity Shares Of Rs.10 Each At A Premium Of Rs.90 Per Share Aggregating To Rs.18 Crore In The Balance Sheet As On 31.03.2014. Since The Assessee Has Charged Very High Premium On The Shares So Allotted, The Assessing Officer Asked The Assessee To Furnish Complete

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Gupta &For Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT, DR
Section 56(2)(viib)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sadhvi Securities P. Ltd., Vs ACIT, 13/34, WEA, Arya Samaj Road, Central Circle-5, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAHCS7130D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri V.P. Gupta & Shri Anunav Kumar, Advocates Revenue by : Shri S.S. Rana, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 02.05.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 16.07.2019 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15th January, 2019 of the CIT(A…

M/S. Tara Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1572/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1572/DEL/2017 A.Y. : 2011-12 M/S TARA MERCANTILE PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 16(1), 314-315, PP TOWER, NEW DELHI NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE, PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI – 34 (PAN: AAACT2680C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee By : Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. Department By : Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the impugned order dated 19.1.2017 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-9, New Delhi on the following grounds:- 1. The…

M/S Innoviti Payment Solutions Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1278/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumarm/S. Innoviti Payment Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Appellant No. 41, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Ngr The Edge, Iii Main, V Cross, Sai Baba Mandir Road, Halasuru, Bengaluru – 560008. Pan. Aabci0504M Vs The Ito, Ward – 3 (1) (1), Respondent Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri B. M. Tambakar, C. A. Revenue By : Shri R. N. Sidappaji, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 07 – 12 – 2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09 – 01 – 2019 O R D E R Per Bench: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Which Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit (A) – 3, Bangalore Dated 23.02.2018 For A. Y. 2014 – 15. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Grounds Relating To Natural Justice The Learned Income Tax Officer 3(1)(1) (Hereinafter " Ad") & The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 3 (Hereinafter "Cit-A") Have Erred In Passing The Order Without Considering All The Submissions & / Or Without Appreciating Properly The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law Applicable. 2. Grounds Relating To Rejection Of Equity Shares Valuation Report Issued By Independent Chartered Accountant The Order Of The Learned Ao Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act') & Confirmed By Learned Cit-A Is Erroneous In Reckoning That Share Premium Collected Is Above Fair Market Value & Thereby Liable To Tax In Pursuance To Section 56(2)(Viib) By Adopting Rule 11Ua(A) To The Exclusion Of The Option Under Rule 11Ua(B) As Opted By The Assessee Without Taking

For Appellant: Shri B. M. Tambakar, C. AFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Sidappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

…ies below. It was also submitted that the tribunal orders cited by the learned AR of the assessee are not applicable in the facts of the present case. He placed reliance on another tribunal order rendered in the case of Agro Portfolio (P.) Ltd. as reported in 94 Taxmann.com 112 (Delhi). He submitted a copy of this tribunal order. In particular, our attention was drawn to Para 13 to 16 of this tribunal order and it was pointed out that in Para 16, the tribunal held that if the correctness of data supplied by the assessee to the merchant banker cannot be determined than the AO can reject DCF method and go to NAV me…