M/s. Microfirm Capital Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

168 ITD 301Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2018#23147 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(23FB)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 11UASection 143(3)Section 250

Judgments citing M/s. Microfirm Capital Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SOYUMM MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue, being ITA no

ITA 4306/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1) Room No.653, Aaykar Bhawan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020 V/S Spectra Realities Private Limited, 9, Floor-I, Plot – 51, Kapadia Chamber, Devji Ratansi Marg, ……………… Respondent Chinchbunder, Mumbai – 400009 Pan: Aalcs7233B Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1) Room No.653, Aaykar Bhawan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr.AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

…4.20 per share as per the valuation report of two separate Chartered Accountants furnished by the assessee. Further, by placing reliance upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in M/s. Microfirm Capital Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, reported in (2018) 168 ITD 301 (Kolkata-Trib.), the AO considered it reasonable and appropriate to apply an illiquidity discount of 15% on the value of Non-Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shares. Accordingly, the AO arrived at a valuation of Non-Cumulative Redeemable ITAs No.4304 & 4306/Mum/2024 (A.Ys. 2017-18) 5 Preference Share at Rs.268.06 per share and made a disallowan…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SPECTRA REALTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue, being ITA no

ITA 4304/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1) Room No.653, Aaykar Bhawan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020 V/S Spectra Realities Private Limited, 9, Floor-I, Plot – 51, Kapadia Chamber, Devji Ratansi Marg, ……………… Respondent Chinchbunder, Mumbai – 400009 Pan: Aalcs7233B Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1) Room No.653, Aaykar Bhawan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr.AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

…4.20 per share as per the valuation report of two separate Chartered Accountants furnished by the assessee. Further, by placing reliance upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in M/s. Microfirm Capital Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, reported in (2018) 168 ITD 301 (Kolkata-Trib.), the AO considered it reasonable and appropriate to apply an illiquidity discount of 15% on the value of Non-Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shares. Accordingly, the AO arrived at a valuation of Non-Cumulative Redeemable ITAs No.4304 & 4306/Mum/2024 (A.Ys. 2017-18) 5 Preference Share at Rs.268.06 per share and made a disallowan…

M/S. UNIWRAP SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(4)., VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2555/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2555/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S.Uniwrap Systems P.Ltd. Ito, Ward-2(1)(4) Plot No.383, Gidc Vs Baroda. Manusar, Tal: Savli Vadodara 391 175. Pan : Aabcu 0130 H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anil R. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri O.P. Pathak, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Anil R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Pathak, Sr.DR
Section 56(2)(viib)

…ethod followed in Commercial Practice. 2) Even Income Tax Department follows "Rounding off in calculation Tax payable. 3) Definition of "Rounding off is supported by Mathematics Dictionary. 4) Judgements relied. a) Microfirm Capital (P) Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT (2018) 168 ITD 301/89 taxmann.com 23 (Kolkata-Trib) b) Rahul Constructions vs. Dy.CIT (2010) 38 DTR (Pune) (Trib) 19 5. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that fair market value of the premium charged by the assessee be taken as per valuation report i.e. Rs.859.56 per share. The limited contention was that this value be adopted at Rs.860/…

M/s. Microfirm Capital Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (168 ITD 301) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax