CIT v. K.N.B. Investments (P.) Ltd.

367 ITR 616High Court#15713 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 112(1)Section 115JAASection 133(6)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

Judgments citing CIT v. K.N.B. Investments (P.) Ltd.

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Prakash Nimmagadda, Hyderabad, Secunderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 974/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.974/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dy.Cit Vs. Shri Prakash Nimmagadda Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acbpn4246R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Meghnath Chowhan, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order, Dated 20/03/2017 Of The Learned Cit (A)-9, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2008-09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Meghnath Chowhan, CIT(DR)
Section 17(2)(c)Section 28

…ITA No 974 of 2017 Prakash Nimmagadda आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President A N D Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.974/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dy.CIT Vs. Shri Prakash Nimmagadda Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN:ACBPN4246R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee by: Shri K.C. Devdas, CA राज" व "ारा/Revenue by:: Dr. Meghnath Chowhan, CIT(DR) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 06/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/12/2024 आदेश/ORDER Per Vijay P…

Hero Motocorp Ltd (As Successor of Hero Investment P.Ltd), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 11(1), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1053/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)

…t in Shoorji Vallabhdas& Co.: 46 ITR 144 (SC) and Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 225 ITR 746 (SC)]. Specific reliance, in this regard, is also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. K.N.B. Investments (P.) Ltd.: 367 ITR 616. It was pointed out that in that case, the assessee was allotted shares at concessional rate of Rs. 90 per share. The assessing officer took the view that the market value of the shares being about Rs. 455 per share, the differential amount of Rs. 365 per share deserved to be treated as 55 'benefit', as defined under section 28 of the Act. Dealin…

Mr. Krishna Kumar Pant, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5574/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr.D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 17(2)(iii)Section 2(24)(iv)Section 234B

…f shares. It was submitted that FMV of shares is irrelevant. In support he relied upon the judgement of Hyderabad ITAT in the case of KNB Investments Pvt. Ltd. reported in 79 ITD 238 (Hyd) which has also been upheld by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in 367 ITR 616 (AP). Ld. Counsel further submitted that where legislature intended that FMV be taken as a relevant criteria for taxability of a “perquisite” it has specifically provided for that in section 17(2)(iiia) and section 17(2)(vi). He also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Infosys 17 ITAs No.5512, 5513, 5546 & 5574/DEL/…

Mr. Sanjiv Narayan, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5546/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr.D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 17(2)(iii)Section 2(24)(iv)Section 234B

…f shares. It was submitted that FMV of shares is irrelevant. In support he relied upon the judgement of Hyderabad ITAT in the case of KNB Investments Pvt. Ltd. reported in 79 ITD 238 (Hyd) which has also been upheld by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in 367 ITR 616 (AP). Ld. Counsel further submitted that where legislature intended that FMV be taken as a relevant criteria for taxability of a “perquisite” it has specifically provided for that in section 17(2)(iiia) and section 17(2)(vi). He also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Infosys 17 ITAs No.5512, 5513, 5546 & 5574/DEL/…

Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5513/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr.D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 17(2)(iii)Section 2(24)(iv)Section 234B

…f shares. It was submitted that FMV of shares is irrelevant. In support he relied upon the judgement of Hyderabad ITAT in the case of KNB Investments Pvt. Ltd. reported in 79 ITD 238 (Hyd) which has also been upheld by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in 367 ITR 616 (AP). Ld. Counsel further submitted that where legislature intended that FMV be taken as a relevant criteria for taxability of a “perquisite” it has specifically provided for that in section 17(2)(iiia) and section 17(2)(vi). He also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Infosys 17 ITAs No.5512, 5513, 5546 & 5574/DEL/…

Mr. J.S. Gujral, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5512/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr.D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 17(2)(iii)Section 2(24)(iv)Section 234B

…f shares. It was submitted that FMV of shares is irrelevant. In support he relied upon the judgement of Hyderabad ITAT in the case of KNB Investments Pvt. Ltd. reported in 79 ITD 238 (Hyd) which has also been upheld by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in 367 ITR 616 (AP). Ld. Counsel further submitted that where legislature intended that FMV be taken as a relevant criteria for taxability of a “perquisite” it has specifically provided for that in section 17(2)(iiia) and section 17(2)(vi). He also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Infosys 17 ITAs No.5512, 5513, 5546 & 5574/DEL/…

CIT v. K.N.B. Investments (P.) Ltd. (367 ITR 616) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax