(i) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Cinestaan Entertainment (P) Ltd.

429 ITR 69High Court2020#20844 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 11UA Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

Judgments citing (i) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Cinestaan Entertainment (P) Ltd.

Holiday Triangle Travel Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 67/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Shivpuri, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

…f the DFCF Method, thereby rendering an erroneous decision. The case laws relied upon are enumerated below : i) M/s. Rameshwaram Strong Glass (P) Ltd. v. ITO, Ward 2(1), Ajmer, ITA 884/JP/2016 dated 12.07.2018. ii) CIT, Chennai v. VVA Hotels (P) Ltd., (2020) 429 ITR 69 (Madras); 10 Holiday Triangle Travel Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon. iii) Exceed Technology Solutions (P) Ltd. v. ITO, Bengaluru (2020) 119 taxmann.com 378 (Bangalore-Trib.); iv) Valencia Nutrition Ltd. v. DCIT, Bangalore (2020) 120 taxmann.com 238 (Bangalore-Trib.); v) Cinestaan Entertainment (P) Ltd. v. ITO, New Delhi (2019) 106 taxmann.com 300 (Delhi-Tri…

S10 Healthcare Solutions Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-6(3), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 649/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.649/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. M/S.S10 Healthcare Solutions- The Ito, Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Ward-6(3), 102, Mahalingapuram Main Road, Chennai. Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagcp 7986 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vijaya Sriram, CA &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

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

…ue of the shares allotted at a premium from M/s.STPL. We note that the AO had no power under law to change the DCF method chosen by the assessee as held by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. VVA Hotels Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2020] 429 ITR 69 (Mad.)(HC). We also note that shares allotted to Dr Afser and M/s STPL can’t be compared because by giving M/s.S10 Healthcare Solutions Pvt. Ltd. :: 10 :: huge premium per share of assessee company, M/s.STPL not only got 51% i.e. controlling interest in the assessee company, but also indirectly got 30% of the value of the US Company (M/s P.A.Inc…

M/S. Govind Stone Private Limited, Hamirpur vs. Income Tax Officer -5(4), Banda

ITA 258/ALLD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad19 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. R. S. Agrawal, Adv. &VinayGoel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh Sr.D.R

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56Section 68

…quity shares comes to Rs. 87 per equity share. It was submitted that the assessee did not applied DCF method to compute FMV. The assessee relied upon judgment and order of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. VVA Hotels Private Limited, reported in 429 ITR 69(Mad. HC), and our attention was drawn to page 120 of case law paper book filed by the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions . It was submitted that no valuation report was filed by the assessee to determine the Fair Market Value. It was submitted that as per assessee Rule 11UA(2) is applicable…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Meliora Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 40/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.40/Viz/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Meliora Asset Circle-3(1), Reconstruction Company Visakhapatnam. Ltd., Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaicm 2935 K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) Co No. 39/Viz/2021 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.40/Viz/2021) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) M/S. Meliora Asset Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Reconstruction Company Ltd., Tax, Visakhapatnam. Circle-3(1), Pan: Aaicm 2935 K Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

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

…the reasonableness of the assumptions and thereafter valued the share under DCF method. The Ld. AR relied on the following case laws: (i) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Cinestaan Entertainment (P) Ltd reported in [2021] 199 DTR (Del) (ii) [2020]429 ITR 69 (Madras) and 7 (iii) Decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Karmic Labs (P) Ltd in ITA No. 3955/Mum/2018, dated 28/07/2020. The Ld. AR placed heavy reliance in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Cinestaan Entertainment (P) Ltd., (supra). The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be upheld. 5. We have heard the rival conten…