ITO v. M/s. Shripal Polyfilm Ltd.

104 Taxmann.com 172Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2019#18616 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing ITO v. M/s. Shripal Polyfilm Ltd.

M/S. Ambattur Developers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-1(1), Chennai

ITA 2601/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2601/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Ambattur Developers Private Limited, (Amalgamated With Ambattur Hotels Private Limited) No. 86/E2, Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai - 600 058. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaeca-7490-D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Corporate Ward- 1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : Shri. Bipin, C.N., Cit सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025 : 11.11.2025 आदेश /Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Nfac, Delhi, (In Short Ld.Cit(A)) For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Vide Order Dated 12.08.2024. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: :-2-:

For Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2601/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Ambattur Developers Private Limited, (Amalgamated with Ambattur Hotels Private Limited) No. 86/E2, Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai - 600 058. Tamil Nadu. [PAN: AAECA-7490-D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Income Tax Officer, vs. Corporate Ward- 1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/…

DCIT Circle- 6 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Jostar Orgotech Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 103/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 103/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-(6)(3)(2) M/S Jostar Orgotech Pvt. Ltd. बिाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, R. No. 576 A-501, Innova Marathon Next Gen. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Off. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Vs. Lower Parel(W), Mumbai-400 008 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcj-2496-H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Sr. Dr Assessee By : Shri J. P. Bairagra– Ld. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 30/08/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 03/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai [Cit(A)], Dated 02/09/2019 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) On 28/03/2015. The Sole Ground By The Revenue Read As Under: - On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.5,68,60,000/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Share Application Money/Share Capital & Share Premium Which Is Held As Unexplained

For Appellant: Shri J. P. Bairagra– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…n, discretion of the assessee and the shareholders. The provisions of Sec.56(2)(viib) requiring assessee to justify quantum of premium would be applicable only from AY 2013-14 and could not apply to this year. The Tribunal in ITO V/s Chiripal Poly films Ltd. (104 Taxmann.com 172), relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT V/s Green Infra Ltd. (2017; 392 ITR 7) held that valuation of shares would not be relevant for determining genuineness of the transaction for the purpose of Section 68 of the Act. It was held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court that the genuineness of the transaction is…

ITO v. M/s. Shripal Polyfilm Ltd. (104 Taxmann.com 172) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax