Agro Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO

171 ITD 74Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2018#4301 most cited

What is Agro Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO authority for?

The Assessing Officer can scrutinize the valuation report submitted by an assessee and may, if necessary, determine a fresh valuation using the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method, even if the assessee opted for a different method, provided the assessee fails to substantiate their projections.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Agro Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO · section 56(2)(viib) · valuation of shares · DCF method · NAV method · fair market value · Assessing Officer · valuation report · Rule 11UA

Sections most often in play

Section 56(2)(viib)Section 143(3)Section 11UASection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 11UA(2)(b)Section 131

Issues it is cited on

nav methoddcf methodsection 56(2)(viib)valuation of sharessection 56(2)section 56(2)(vii)(b)fair market valuesection 56(2)(vii)date of transfersection 56book profitsadvance tax

Judgments citing Agro Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO

Hero Fincorp Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 11(1), Delhi, C.R. Building

ITA 2542/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2542/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year:2017-18 Hero Fincop Ltd., 34 Community Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1) C. R. Building, New Delhi-110002 अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Pan:Aaach0157J Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Shri Himanshu Aggarwal Adv. Revenue By Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14.01.2026 उद्घोषणाकीतारीख/Pronouncement On 16.01.2026 आदेश /Order Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am, The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of ‘Hire Purchase Leasing & Finance'. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/(First Appellate Authority Hereinafter Referred As “Faa”), Delhi Dated 27.03.2024 Arising Out Of Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 29.12.2019For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Disallowance Of Provision For Collection Charges -Rs. 9,75,00,000/-

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 251(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

…its shares was not correct. Further, the AO determined the value of the shares under Rule 11UA(2)(a) at the rate of Rs. 210 per share. Further, the AO relied upon the decision of ITAT Delhi in the case of AgroPorfolio Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No. 2189/Del/2018)(171 ITD 74 Delhi Tribunal)for the proposition that the AO had the jurisdiction to adopt a different method other than the assessee, if the facts and circumstances of the case warrants so. In view of the above findings, the AO taxed the difference of the premium of Rs. 310.30 per share against total shares issued of 1,34,92,216 and added a sum of Rs. 418,66,3…

Kataria Snack Pellets Private Limited, Rajkot vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 468/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.468/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kataria Snack Pellets Pvt. Ltd. The Acit, Circle-1(1) बनाम 510, Gidc, Metoda Kalawad Road Rajkot Rajkot-360021, Gujarat Vs. Pan : Aafck2028L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Nishit B. Jesur, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

…e correctness of the result of Discounted cash flow method adopted by the assessee and also no evidence to substantiate basis of projections in cash flow system.Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in case of Agro Portfolio (P) Ltd v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (4). New Delhi (171 ITD 74) upheld the action of AO of rejecting the valuation report as it was found that Merchant banker had solely relied upon an assumed data without independent verification or truthfulness and completeness of information. Further, no evidence to substantiate basis of projections in cash flow was provided by assessee .Whether since without any evidence,…

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)

…by calling a determination from an independent valuer to confront the Assessee but the basis has to be DCF method and he cannot change the method of valuation which has been opted by the Assessee. The decision of ITAT, Delhi in the case of Agro Portfolio Ltd. 171 ITD 74 has also been considered by the ITAT, Bangalore in the case of VBHC Value Homes Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 12. In view of the above legal position, we are of view that the issue with regard to valuation has to be decided afresh by the AO on the lines indicated in the decision of ITAT, Bangalore in the case of VBHCValue Homes Pvt. Ltd., v. ITO (supra) i.e.…

Madhurima International Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4430/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…V method. In doing so, the Hon'ble ITAT thus upheld the authority of the ld. AO to override the choice of valuation method adopted under certain circumstances. 4.7. Again, Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in case of Agro Portfolio (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2018] 94 taxmann.com 112/171 ITD 74, held that, in the facts of this case in the event the ld. AO had any inhibition or doubt about the valuation adopted by the taxpayer, he may make a reference to the Valuation Officer of the Department to verify the veracity of such valuation. However, in a situation where the taxpayer-company fails to substantiate the projections adopted to deter…

M/S Unihealth Consultancy Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, 8 (3) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4387/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Unihealth Consultancy Ltd., The Dy. Cit-8(3)(1), H-13 & H-14 Everest, 9Th Floor, Room No. 615, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Tardeo Road, Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400034. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabcu 1551 C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kalyani/ Ajay Dhoot
Section 143(3)Section 68

…circumstances of the case and in law, f) On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A)'s has affirmed the learned CIT(A)'s has affirmed the decision of Agro Portfolio (P.) the decision of Agro Portfolio (P.) LTD v. ITO [2018] 171 ITD 74 (Delhi LTD v. ITO [2018] 171 ITD 74 (Delhi -Trib.) which has been Trib.) which has been explicitly overturned by the Hon. Delhi High Court in favour of the explicitly overturned by the Hon. Delhi High Court in favour of the explicitly overturned by the Hon. Delhi High Court in favour of the appellant. The appellant had duly highlighted the updated…

Spl Infrastructure Pvt. Lt, Alwarpet, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai

ITA 325/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.325/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Spl Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 15, Kasturi Rangan Road, Corporate Circle – 6(1), Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [Pan: Aaics0881N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.03.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Raised 11 Grounds Of Appeal. The Ld. Ar Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate, Drew Our Attention To Ground No. 11 & Submits That This Matter Requires To Be Remanded To The File Of The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

…es. Also, the facts of the other case laws are different from the facts of the present case, hence, not applicable. On a similar facts, the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Agro Portfolio (P.) Ltd. Vs ITO [2018] 94 taxmann.com 112 (Delhi - Trib) [2018] 171 ITD 74 (Delhi - Trib.) held that where assessee allotted shares to a company and fair market value of shares was done by a Merchant banker only on basis of Direct Cash Flow (DCF) method depending on data supplied by assessee and no evidence was produced for verifying correctness of data supplied by assessee, Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting D…

M/S. Finwizard Technology Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 15/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Sri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…by calling a determination from an independent valuer to confront the Assessee but the basis has to be DCF method and he cannot change the method of valuation which has been opted by the Assessee. The decision of ITAT, Delhi in the case of Agro Portfolio Ltd. 171 ITD 74 has also been considered by the ITAT, Bangalore in the case of VBHC Value Homes Pvt.Ltd.(supra). 5.6 We are of the view that, the ld. AO erred in considering the actuals of revenue and profits declared in the future years as a basis to dispute the projections. At the time of valuing the shares as on 21/22.10.2015, the actual results of the later…

M/S. Waterline Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 388/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Waterline Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 10Th Floor, Gamma Block, Of Income Tax, Sigma Soft Tech Park No.07, Circle 7(1)(2), Airport Varthur Road, Bangalore. Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aaacw 8059N Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Pranav Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals)-7, Bengaluru Dated 27.3.2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised 18 Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Page 2 Of 20

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 271Section 40Section 56(2)(viib)

…by calling a determination from an independent valuer to confront the Assessee but the basis has to be DCF method and he cannot change the method of valuation which has been opted by the Assessee. The decision of ITAT, Delhi in the case of Agro Portfolio Ltd. 171 ITD 74 and the decision of the Bangalore Bench in the case of TUF Rheinland NIFE Academy Pvt.Ltd. (TS-92-ITAT- 2019(Bang)has also been considered by the ITAT, Bangalore in the case of VBHC Value Homes Pvt. Ltd.(supra). 11. In view of the above legal position, we are of view that the issue with regard to valuation has to be decided afresh by the AO on the…

Potent Foods Private Limted, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward-2(1), Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 104/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Shyam SunderFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 68

…held that the reliance of the assessee on the valuation report for the premium charged at Rs.70/- on each share under Rule 11UA does not carry any force. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Agro Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, 171 ITD 74, the ld.CIT(A) held that the valuation report for the premium charged of Rs.70/- on each share under Rule 11UA does not carry any force. 40 ITA.No.104/Del./2021 M/s. Potent Foods Pvt. Ltd., Sector 20-B, Faridabad, Haryana. 14. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that for the purpose of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act the valu…

Mantram Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ITO Ward-1(5), Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 105/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Shyam SunderFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 56Section 68

…held that the reliance of the assessee on the valuation report for the premium charged at Rs.70/- on each share under Rule 11UA does not carry any force. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Agro Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, 171 ITD 74, the ld.CIT(A) held that the valuation report for the premium charged of Rs.70/- on each share under Rule 11UA does not carry any force. 14. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that for the purpose of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act the valuation of the shares has to be done in accordance with the Rule 11UA of IT Rules, 1962.…

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

…by calling a determination from an independent valuer to confront the Assessee but the basis has to be DCF method and he cannot change the method of valuation which has been opted by the Assessee. The decision of ITAT, Delhi in the case of Agro Portfolio Ltd. 171 ITD 74 has also been considered by the ITAT, Bangalore in the case of VBHC Value Homes Pvt.Ltd.(supra). 20. The gist of the findings of the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) on the alleged discrepancies in the valuation report is as under: 1. Growth rate is taken at 12% year after year 2. WACC has been forecasted at 30% 3. The sales have been projecte…

Arm Infra & Utilities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax Range-6, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2212/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Harit
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…(P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-  tax-t, Kolkata 12015] 155 ITD 171 (Kolkata - Trib.) S. Manickavasagam v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-1, Salem  |2010] 123 ITD 235 (Chennai) - Agro Portfolio (P.) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (4),  New Delhi ; [2018] 171 ITD 74 (Delhi-Trib.)” 10. In rebuttal, the Ld AR submitted as below:– “4. Rebuttal to Contentions of the Id. Departmental Representative 4.1. The impugned order has questioned the genuineness of the transaction as well as applicability of section 68 of the Act Reply: At outset, we submit that the Pr.CIT has not raised any question of the genuineness of…

3P Technologies India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 7(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 238/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K.And Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year:2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, D.R
Section 11USection 56(2)(viib)

…by calling a determination from an independent valuer to confront the Assessee but the basis has to be DCF method and he cannot change the method of valuation which has been opted by the Assessee. The decision of ITAT, Delhi in the case of Agro Portfolio Ltd. 171 ITD 74 has also been considered by the ITAT, Bangalore in the case of VBHC Value Homes Pvt.Ltd.(supra). 20. The gist of the findings of the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) on the alleged discrepancies in the valuation report is as under: 1. Growth rate is taken at 12% year after year 2. WACC has been forecasted at 30% 3. The sales have been projecte…

Brash Steels Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(2), Faridabad

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

ITA 6181/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S Brash Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Near Ward-1(2), Neelam Flyover, Sector-20B, Faridabad, Faridabad, Haryana-121002 Haryana-121002 Pan-Aafcb0204R

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Farat Khan, Sr. DR
Section 11USection 133(6)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…that the reliance of the assessee on the valuation report for the premium charged at Rs.70/- on each share under Rule 11UA does not carry any force. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Agro Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, 12 171 ITD 74, the ld.CIT(A) held that the valuation report for the premium charged of Rs.70/- on each share under Rule 11UA does not carry any force. 16. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that for the purpose of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act the valuation of the shares has to be done in accordance with the Rule 11UA of IT Rules, 1962…

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)

…by calling a determination from an independent valuer to confront the Assessee but the basis has to be DCF method and he cannot change the method of valuation which has been opted by the Assessee. The decision of ITAT, Delhi in the case of Agro Portfolio Ltd. 171 ITD 74 and the decision of the Bangalore Bench in the case of TUF Rheinland NIFE Academy Pvt.Ltd. (TS-92-ITAT-2019(Bang)has also been considered by the ITAT, Bangalore in the case of VBHC Value Homes Pvt. Ltd.(supra). 11. In view of the above legal position, we are of view that the issue with regard to valuation has to be decided afresh by the AO on the…

M/S. Ukn Hospitality Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 7(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2170/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Ukn Hospitality Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 10Th Floor, Gamma Block, Sigma Soft Tech Ward – 7(1)(2), Park, No.7, Airport Varthur Road, Bengaluru. Whitefield Main Road, Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 8470 B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri S. V. Ravishankar Advocate 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)–10, Bangalore, Dated 8.3.2019 In Relation To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. There Is A Delay Of About 132 Days In Filing This Appeal By The Assessee. The Reasons For The Delay Is Owing To The Fact That Mr.K.Ravindran, The Group Cfo & Director Who Was Handling The Matter Did Not Bring To The Notice Of The Group Chairman About The Impugned Order. Mr.K.Ravindran Was Made To Resign As Director Due To Various Issues & He Stopped Attending Office Since April, 2019. The Chartered Account Who Appeared Before Cit(A) In A Meeting With The Officials On Page 2 Of 12 30.9.2019 Found That No Action Had Been Taken Against The Impugned Order & Thereafter The Appeal Had Been Filed.

For Appellant: Shri S. V. Ravishankar AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10Section 14Section 21Section 56(2)(viib)

…by calling a determination from an independent valuer to confront the Assessee but the basis has to be DCF method and he cannot change the method of valuation which has been opted by the Assessee. The decision of ITAT, Delhi in the case of Agro Portfolio Ltd. 171 ITD 74 has also been considered by the ITAT, Bangalore in the case of VBHC Value Homes Pvt. Ltd.(supra). 14. In view of the above legal position, we are of view that the issue with regard to valuation has to be decided afresh by the AO on the lines indicated in the decision of ITAT, Bangalore in the case of VBHC Value Homes Pvt. Ltd., Vs ITO (supra) i.e…

Mantram Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Faridabad

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

ITA 6170/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2015-16 Mantram Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito, Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Ward 1(5), Near Neelam Flyover, Faridabad. Sector-20B, Faridabad. Pan: Aahcm9517C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Saxena, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rovin Rawal, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Orders Dated 29Th March, 2019 Of The Cit(A), Faridabad, Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Has Not Conducted Any Business Activity During The Relevant Assessment Year. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 10Th September, 2015 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.1,64,750/-. The Ao, During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Noted That The Assessee Company Has Received Rs.42 Lakhs As Share Premium During The Year On Issue Of 60000 Shares At A Premium Of Rs.70/-. He Noticed That The Shares Have Been Allotted On 31St March, 2015 To The Following Companies/Persons:- Name Of Person, No. Of Nominal Premium Amount Of Total Amt. Paid Shares Value Per Per Premium(Rs.) Including Share(Rs.) Share(Rs.) Premium(Rs.) Gangashiv 33125 10 70 2318750 2650000 Contractors Pvt. Ltd. 26875 10 70 1881250 2150000 Amar Shree Industries Pvt. Ltd. Total 60000 4200000 4800000

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rovin Rawal, Addl.CIT
Section 11USection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…eld that the reliance of the assessee on the valuation report for the premium charged at Rs.70/- on each share under Rule 11UA does not carry any force. Relying on the 9 decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Agro Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, 171 ITD 74, the ld.CIT(A) held that the valuation report for the premium charged of Rs.70/- on each share under Rule 11UA does not carry any force. 14. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that for the purpose of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act the valuation of the shares has to be done in accordance with the Rule 11UA of IT Rules, 1962.…

M/S. Innaccel Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 146/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Siddana Biradar, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. R.Premi, D.R
Section 56(2)(viib)

…by calling a determination from an independent valuer to confront the Assessee but the basis has to be DCF method and he cannot change the method of valuation which has been opted by the Assessee. The decision of ITAT, Delhi in the case of Agro Portfolio Ltd. 171 ITD 74 has also been considered by the ITAT, Bangalore in the case of VBHC Value Homes Pvt.Ltd.(supra). 20. The gist of the findings of the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) on the alleged discrepancies in the valuation report is as under: 1. Growth rate is taken at 12% year after year 2. WACC has been forecasted at 30% 3. The sales have been projecte…

Tsi Yatra Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, Range-25, New Delhi

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

ITA 1068/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)

…d by AO in para 4.18 to 4.21. In para 4.24, AO has analysed how there is no correlation between projections and actual figures of the assessee. 13. In support Ld CIT (DR) also relied upon following judicial pronouncements: • Agro Portfolio (P) Ltd reported in 171 ITD 74(Del) • Sunrise Academy of Medical Specialties reported in 257 Taxman 373(Ker) • Sunrise Academy of Medical Specialties reported in (2018) 94 taxmann.com 181(Ker) • Madhurima International Private Limited, ITA 421/Mum/2017 order dated 28th April 2017. 14. We have heard both the parties, gone through the orders and have also considered facts of the…

M/S. Gs E-Commerce Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 335/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Gse Commerce Private Ltd. No.41, Medsoft Building Tata Silk Farm Acit Kankapura Main Road Vs. Circle-3(1)(2) Basavangudi Bangalore Bangalore-560 004 Pan No : Aafcg0578B Appellant Respondent S.P. No.91/Bang/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No.335/Bang/2020) Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Gse Commerce Private Ltd. Acit Circle-3(1)(2) Vs. Bangalore-560 004 Bangalore Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh Gupta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, D.R
Section 56(2)(viib)

…by calling a determination from an independent valuer to confront the Assessee but the basis has to be DCF method and he cannot change the method of valuation which has been opted by the Assessee. The decision of ITAT, Delhi in the case of Agro Portfolio Ltd. 171 ITD 74 has also been considered by the ITAT, Bangalore in the case of VBHC Value Homes Pvt.Ltd.(supra). 20. The gist of the findings of the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) on the alleged discrepancies in the valuation report is as under: 1. Growth rate is taken at 12% year after year 2. WACC has been forecasted at 30% 3. The sales have been projecte…

Agro Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (171 ITD 74) — Cited in 27 Judgments | BharatTax