What is PCIT v. Cinestaan Entertainment Pvt Ltd. authority for?

The Assessing Officer cannot reject the share valuation method adopted by an assessee under Section 56(2)(viib) if it adheres to prescribed methodologies and commercial prudence. The valuation cannot be challenged based on future performance or by substituting another method.

How many judgments cite PCIT v. Cinestaan Entertainment Pvt Ltd.?

49 judgments on BharatTax cite PCIT v. Cinestaan Entertainment Pvt Ltd. (433 ITR 82), spanning 2022 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does PCIT v. Cinestaan Entertainment Pvt Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 56(2)(viib), Section 143(3), Section 1962, Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act.

PCIT v. Cinestaan Entertainment Pvt Ltd. (433 ITR 82)

ORAGADAM CITY DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-5(1), CHENNAI

In the result, Addition u/s

ITA 2173/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: MR. R. Sivaraman, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 56(2)(viib)

…n under DCF method. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents including: • Cinestaan Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 180 DTR 65/ 200 TTJ 459 / 177 ITD 809 (Delhi)(Trib.) affirmed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in PCIT v. Cinestaan Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 433 ITR 82/ 199 DTR 345/ 320 CTR 381 (Delhi) (HC); • ACIT vs. Lifestyle Probuild (P.) Ltd. [2023] 155 taxmann.com 338 (Delhi - Trib.)/[2023] 203 ITD 585 (Delhi - Trib.)[09-10-2023]; • Dy. CIT v. Kilitch Healthcare India Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 7061 (Mum) of 2019, dated 22-3-2022]; • ITO vs Irunway India Pvt. Ltd. (Bangalore ITAT). 3.2 Per contra, ld.DR for the…

REFIRAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURGAON

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 8306/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 8306/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Refiral Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, House No. 1789, Third Floor, Sector- Ward-3(5), 46, Gurgaon-122002 Gurgaon-1220088 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcr0604D Assessee By: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.01.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A), Kolkata’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1081746005(1) Dated 14.10.2025, In Proceedings U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 56(2)(viib)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No. 8306/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Refiral Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, House No. 1789, Third Floor, Sector- Ward-3(5), 46, Gurgaon-122002 Gurgaon-1220088 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAHCR0604D Assessee by: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CA Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 20.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 20.01.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16 arises against the Addl./JCIT(A), Kolkata’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-2…

INTERMESH SHOPPING NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 12(3), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1579/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarintermesh Shopping Network Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, Lower Ground Unit No. 1-06, Ward-12(3), Boomerang, Chandivali Farmroad, Delhi Chandivali, Mumbai-400072 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaci7990L

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Dhawan, Adv (VC)For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

…al High Court which is reported in 464 ITR 348 (Del) dated 4-04-2024. We further find that the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs Cinestaan Entertainment Private Limited reported in 433 ITR 82 (Del) dated 1-03- 2021. 8. Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial precedent, we direct the Learned AO to delete the addition made in the sum of Rs 8,39,55,840/- Intermesh Shopping Network Pvt. Ltd under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are all…

JCIT(OSD), NEW DELHI vs. MANISH VIJ, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1746/DEL/2025[2022]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshjcit, Vs. Manish Vij, A-1,/ 134, 1St Floor, Sk (Osd), Delhi Enclave, South West Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aagpv7555H

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 48Section 50C

…Pvt Ltd reported 163 taxmann.com 408. b. Decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Caddie Hotels Pvt. Ltd Vs. PCIT reported in 153 taxmann.com 524. c. Decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Cinestaan Entertainment Pvt Ltd reported in 433 ITR 82. d. Decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Hometrial Buildtech Pvt. Ltd reported in 204 ITD 154. e. Decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Agra Portfolio India Ltd Vs. PCIT reported in 464 ITR 348. f. Decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of BITO-Lagertechnik Bittmann GmbH Vs. ACIT in ITA 2440/Del/2023 g. Decision of Del…

ECOENERGY INSIGHTS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS CHUBB ALBA CONTROL SYSTEMS P.LTD),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2321/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaecoenergy Insights Ltd., Vs. Dcit, (Formerly Known As Chubb Alba Control Circle 4 (2), Systems P. Ltd.), New Delhi. Ground Floor, 18, Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi – 110 002. (Pan :Aaaca0031C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri Parth, Advocate Shri Pratik Rath, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Order : 10.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 25.07.2022Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 147 Read With Section 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Ay 2018-19 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 92C

…nt of INR 39 crores is recommended. In this context approach of Ld. TPO appears to be directly contrary to principles laid down by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income -Tax Vs Cinestaan Entertainment Pvt Limited [2021] 433 ITR 82 – kindly refer placitum 13 on internal page 93 of said decision. Relevant extract of same is as follows: “From the aforesaid extract of the impugned order, it becomes clear that the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has followed the dicta of the hon'ble Supreme Court in matters relating to the commercial prudence of an assessee relating to val…

A B PROPMART PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 1(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 108/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] A B Propmart Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, Punjabi Bhawan, 10 Ward-1(1), Rouse Avenue, Delhi-110002. Delhi Pan-Aagca7340G Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Chandan Agarwal, Ca & Shri Ajay Marwah, Ca Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15.10.2025 Order

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

…ITA No.108/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “A” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2014-15] A B Propmart Pvt.Ltd., vs ITO, Punjabi Bhawan, 10 Ward-1(1), Rouse Avenue, Delhi-110002. Delhi PAN-AAGCA7340G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by Shri Chandan Agarwal, CA & Shri Ajay Marwah, CA Revenue by Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 15.10.2025 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM : The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 28.11.2024 by Ld. Commissi…

PRANOO FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 13(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4580/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi & Ms. Sruti KalyanikarFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

…f the Assessee-Company. In this regard, we note that the Learned Authorised for the Assessee had placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Principle Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Cinestaan Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. [2021] 433 ITR 82 (Delhi), dated 01/01/2021 wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court had rejected the identical approach adopted by the Revenue holding as under: “12. In this factual background, the learned ITAT then proceeded to examine whether the AO after invoking the deeming provision under Section 56(2)(viib), could have determined the FMV of the premium on the s…

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 11(3), NEW DELHI vs. HIGHRISE SECURITIES AND TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 30/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Ito, Vs Highrise Securities & Trading Ward-11(3), Pvt.Ltd., G-19, S/F, Room No.410A, Vijay Chokh, Near Tiwari C.R.Building, Complex, Laxmi Nagar, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110092. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aaach3402Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Sudesh Garg, Adv., Bhavya Garg, Adv. & Shri Shubham Sharma, Adv. Date Of Hearing 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2025

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “B” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2017-18] ITO, vs Highrise Securities & Trading Ward-11(3), Pvt.Ltd., G-19, S/F, Room No.410A, Vijay Chokh, Near Tiwari C.R.Building, Complex, Laxmi Nagar, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110092. New Delhi-110002. PAN-AAACH3402Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Revenue by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Assessee by Shri Sudesh Garg, Adv., Bhavya Garg, Adv. & Shri Shubham Sharma, Adv. Date of Hearing 05.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 20.08.2025 ORDER PER MANISH AG…

DCIT, CENTRAL CERCLE-20, NEW DELHI vs. NUTAN GROWTH FUND PVT LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2417/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Dcit, Vs Nutan Growth Fund Pvt.Ltd., Central Circle-20, L-4, Green Park Extension, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 Pan-Aaacn0023H Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Pravin Rawal, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Ca & Ms. Meenal Goyal, Adv. & Ms. Vidhi Mangla, Adv. Date Of Hearing 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.08.2025

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

…mits that AO has no power to change the method of valuation adopted by the assessee. For this, she placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Cinestaan Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1007/2019 reported in 433 ITR 82. Further reliance is placed on the following case laws of the coordinate Delhi benches of Tribunal where by following the judgement of Cinestaan Entertainment Pvt.Ltd. (supra) additions made were deleted. - Caddie Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT 202 ITD 351(Delhi ITAT) - DCIT Vs. Hometrail Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. 204 ITD 154 (Delhi ITAT) - Thinkstations Lea…

DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAX HOSPITALS AND ALLIED SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3085/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…rescribed method, then the same cannot be rejected because neither the Assessing Officer nor the assessee have been recognized as expert under the law.” 10. This decision of the Co-ordinate Bench has been affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in [2021] 433 ITR 82 (Delhi). The relevant part of the judgment reads as under:- “8. We have heard and duly considered the arguments and contentions advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties. 9. In the present case, the Respondent-Assessee has received share premium from various subscribers/equity partners. These funds were required by the Respondent- Asse…

DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAX HOSPITALS AND ALLIED SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3084/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…rescribed method, then the same cannot be rejected because neither the Assessing Officer nor the assessee have been recognized as expert under the law.” 10. This decision of the Co-ordinate Bench has been affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in [2021] 433 ITR 82 (Delhi). The relevant part of the judgment reads as under:- “8. We have heard and duly considered the arguments and contentions advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties. 9. In the present case, the Respondent-Assessee has received share premium from various subscribers/equity partners. These funds were required by the Respondent- Asse…

DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAX HOSPITALS AND ALLIED SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3083/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…rescribed method, then the same cannot be rejected because neither the Assessing Officer nor the assessee have been recognized as expert under the law.” 10. This decision of the Co-ordinate Bench has been affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in [2021] 433 ITR 82 (Delhi). The relevant part of the judgment reads as under:- “8. We have heard and duly considered the arguments and contentions advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties. 9. In the present case, the Respondent-Assessee has received share premium from various subscribers/equity partners. These funds were required by the Respondent- Asse…

PEOPLE CARE HOSPITALS PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(1), FARIDABAD

ITA 6178/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S People Care Hospitals Pvt. Vs Ito, Ltd., Ward-2(1), Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Faridabad. Near Neelam Flyover, Sector-20B, Faridabad. Pan: Aagcp8745G Assessment Year: 2015-16 Potent Foods Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Ward-2(1), Near Neelam Flyover, Faridabad Sector-20B, Faridabad. Pan: Aagcp6222N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Saxena, Advocate; Shri Dishant Sethi, Advocate; & Ms Sumangla Saxena, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.12.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: Heard & Perused The Records. The Two Appeals Have Common Investors Whose Investments Have Been Doubted By The Ld, Tax Authorities Below. The Ld. Representatives Of Both The Sides Have Argued Citing Facts Of Ita

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Saxena, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 250(6)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…e it his method even if specific discrepancies are found by the AO in Appellant's working of DCF based FMV. Reliance for this proposition can be placed on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Pr. CIT vs. Cinestaan Entertainment (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 433 ITR 82, wherein it was held as under: "The methodology adopted was a recognized method of valuation and the Department was unable to show that the assessee adopted a 20 ITAs No.6178 & 6179/Del/2019 demonstrably wrong approach or that the method of valuation was made on a wholly erroneous basis, or that it committed a mistake which went to the root of…

AUTOPE PAYMENT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-2(2), DELHI

In the result, ground nos

ITA 86/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar Nayyar, Sr. DR

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

…Assets value or DCF method. As per the above choice of option, assessee has adopted one of the approved method for valuing its shares. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held exact similar view in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Cinestaan Entertainment (P) Ltd. [2021] 433 ITR 82 (Delhi). The relevant ratio is as below: “13. From the aforesaid extract of the impugned order, it becomes clear that the learned ITAT has followed the dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in matters relating to the commercial prudence of an assessee relating to valuation of an asset. The law requires determination of fair market values as per pres…

PEOPLE CARE HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 100/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 People Care Hospitals Private Vs Ito Limited, Plot No.1066, Baba Ward- 2 (1) Nagar, Near Janta Barat Ghar, Faridabad Old Faridabad, Haryana 121002 Pan No.Aagcp8745G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Geranium Barkers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito 103/B, Near Shyamji Mandir Ward-1 (3) Malerna Road, Adarsh Nagar, Faridabad Ballabgarh Haryana -122004 Pan No.Aafcg3396P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Riven Health Club Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Ff-9, Vishnu Place Near Ward- 2 (2) Neelam Flyover Sector-20B Faridabad Faridabad Haryana121001 Pan No. Aagcr1343A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Advocate Ms. Sumangla Saxena, Advocate Sh. Dishant Sethi, Advocate

Section 131oSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 People Care Hospitals Private Vs ITO Limited, Plot No.1066, Baba Ward- 2 (1) Nagar, Near Janta Barat Ghar, Faridabad Old Faridabad, Haryana 121002 PAN no.AAGCP8745G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Geranium Barkers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO 103/B, Near Shyamji Mandir Ward-1 (3) Malerna Road, Adarsh Nagar, Faridabad Ballabgarh Haryana -122004 PAN No.AAFCG3396P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Riven Health Club Pvt.…

RIVEN HEALTH CLUB PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD-2(2), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 103/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 People Care Hospitals Private Vs Ito Limited, Plot No.1066, Baba Ward- 2 (1) Nagar, Near Janta Barat Ghar, Faridabad Old Faridabad, Haryana 121002 Pan No.Aagcp8745G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Geranium Barkers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito 103/B, Near Shyamji Mandir Ward-1 (3) Malerna Road, Adarsh Nagar, Faridabad Ballabgarh Haryana -122004 Pan No.Aafcg3396P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Riven Health Club Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Ff-9, Vishnu Place Near Ward- 2 (2) Neelam Flyover Sector-20B Faridabad Faridabad Haryana121001 Pan No. Aagcr1343A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Advocate Ms. Sumangla Saxena, Advocate Sh. Dishant Sethi, Advocate

Section 131oSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 People Care Hospitals Private Vs ITO Limited, Plot No.1066, Baba Ward- 2 (1) Nagar, Near Janta Barat Ghar, Faridabad Old Faridabad, Haryana 121002 PAN no.AAGCP8745G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Geranium Barkers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO 103/B, Near Shyamji Mandir Ward-1 (3) Malerna Road, Adarsh Nagar, Faridabad Ballabgarh Haryana -122004 PAN No.AAFCG3396P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Riven Health Club Pvt.…

GERANIUM BAKERS PRIVATE LMITED,BALLABHGARH vs. ITO WARD-1(3), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 102/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 People Care Hospitals Private Vs Ito Limited, Plot No.1066, Baba Ward- 2 (1) Nagar, Near Janta Barat Ghar, Faridabad Old Faridabad, Haryana 121002 Pan No.Aagcp8745G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Geranium Barkers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito 103/B, Near Shyamji Mandir Ward-1 (3) Malerna Road, Adarsh Nagar, Faridabad Ballabgarh Haryana -122004 Pan No.Aafcg3396P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Riven Health Club Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Ff-9, Vishnu Place Near Ward- 2 (2) Neelam Flyover Sector-20B Faridabad Faridabad Haryana121001 Pan No. Aagcr1343A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Advocate Ms. Sumangla Saxena, Advocate Sh. Dishant Sethi, Advocate

Section 131oSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 People Care Hospitals Private Vs ITO Limited, Plot No.1066, Baba Ward- 2 (1) Nagar, Near Janta Barat Ghar, Faridabad Old Faridabad, Haryana 121002 PAN no.AAGCP8745G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Geranium Barkers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO 103/B, Near Shyamji Mandir Ward-1 (3) Malerna Road, Adarsh Nagar, Faridabad Ballabgarh Haryana -122004 PAN No.AAFCG3396P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Riven Health Club Pvt.…

SPARSH BEAUTY CARE PVT. LTD.,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-2(4), HARYANA

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 86/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Punyah Building Vs Ito Materials Pvt. Ltd. Ward-2 (1) House No.1002, Near Talab Faridabad Shiv Colony, Old Faridabad Haryana Ballahgarh Haryana 122002 Pan No.Aagcp8742B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sparsh Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Plot No.1066, Near Janta Barat Ward-2 (4) Ghar Baba Nagar, Faridabad Faridabad Haryana 121002 Haryana Pan No.Aascs2575D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Speedy Courier Services Pvt. Vs Ito Ltd. Ward- 2 (4) Plot No.1022, Near Talab Shiv Faridabad Colony, Faridabad Haryana Pan No.Aascs2579R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 131oSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI BEFORE DR. B. R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s. Punyah Building Vs ITO Materials Pvt. Ltd. Ward-2 (1) House No.1002, Near talab Faridabad Shiv Colony, Old Faridabad Haryana Ballahgarh Haryana 122002 PAN No.AAGCP8742B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sparsh Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO Plot No.1066, Near Janta Barat Ward-2 (4) Ghar Baba Nagar, Faridabad Faridabad Haryana 121002 Haryana PAN No.AASCS2575D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Speedy Cou…

PUNYAH BUILDING MATERIALS PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD - 2(1), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 81/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Punyah Building Vs Ito Materials Pvt. Ltd. Ward-2 (1) House No.1002, Near Talab Faridabad Shiv Colony, Old Faridabad Haryana Ballahgarh Haryana 122002 Pan No.Aagcp8742B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sparsh Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Plot No.1066, Near Janta Barat Ward-2 (4) Ghar Baba Nagar, Faridabad Faridabad Haryana 121002 Haryana Pan No.Aascs2575D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Speedy Courier Services Pvt. Vs Ito Ltd. Ward- 2 (4) Plot No.1022, Near Talab Shiv Faridabad Colony, Faridabad Haryana Pan No.Aascs2579R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 131oSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI BEFORE DR. B. R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s. Punyah Building Vs ITO Materials Pvt. Ltd. Ward-2 (1) House No.1002, Near talab Faridabad Shiv Colony, Old Faridabad Haryana Ballahgarh Haryana 122002 PAN No.AAGCP8742B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sparsh Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO Plot No.1066, Near Janta Barat Ward-2 (4) Ghar Baba Nagar, Faridabad Faridabad Haryana 121002 Haryana PAN No.AASCS2575D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Speedy Cou…

SPEEDY COURIER SERVICES PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD - 2(4), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 80/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Punyah Building Vs Ito Materials Pvt. Ltd. Ward-2 (1) House No.1002, Near Talab Faridabad Shiv Colony, Old Faridabad Haryana Ballahgarh Haryana 122002 Pan No.Aagcp8742B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sparsh Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Plot No.1066, Near Janta Barat Ward-2 (4) Ghar Baba Nagar, Faridabad Faridabad Haryana 121002 Haryana Pan No.Aascs2575D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Speedy Courier Services Pvt. Vs Ito Ltd. Ward- 2 (4) Plot No.1022, Near Talab Shiv Faridabad Colony, Faridabad Haryana Pan No.Aascs2579R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 131oSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI BEFORE DR. B. R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s. Punyah Building Vs ITO Materials Pvt. Ltd. Ward-2 (1) House No.1002, Near talab Faridabad Shiv Colony, Old Faridabad Haryana Ballahgarh Haryana 122002 PAN No.AAGCP8742B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sparsh Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO Plot No.1066, Near Janta Barat Ward-2 (4) Ghar Baba Nagar, Faridabad Faridabad Haryana 121002 Haryana PAN No.AASCS2575D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Speedy Cou…

PCIT v. Cinestaan Entertainment Pvt Ltd.

What is PCIT v. Cinestaan Entertainment Pvt Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing PCIT v. Cinestaan Entertainment Pvt Ltd.

ORAGADAM CITY DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-5(1), CHENNAI

REFIRAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURGAON

INTERMESH SHOPPING NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 12(3), DELHI

JCIT(OSD), NEW DELHI vs. MANISH VIJ, DELHI

ECOENERGY INSIGHTS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS CHUBB ALBA CONTROL SYSTEMS P.LTD),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

A B PROPMART PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 1(1), DELHI

PRANOO FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 13(1)(2), MUMBAI

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 11(3), NEW DELHI vs. HIGHRISE SECURITIES AND TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI

DCIT, CENTRAL CERCLE-20, NEW DELHI vs. NUTAN GROWTH FUND PVT LTD, DELHI

DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAX HOSPITALS AND ALLIED SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI

DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAX HOSPITALS AND ALLIED SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI

DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAX HOSPITALS AND ALLIED SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI

PEOPLE CARE HOSPITALS PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(1), FARIDABAD

AUTOPE PAYMENT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-2(2), DELHI

PEOPLE CARE HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), FARIDABAD

RIVEN HEALTH CLUB PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD-2(2), FARIDABAD

GERANIUM BAKERS PRIVATE LMITED,BALLABHGARH vs. ITO WARD-1(3), FARIDABAD

SPARSH BEAUTY CARE PVT. LTD.,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-2(4), HARYANA

PUNYAH BUILDING MATERIALS PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD - 2(1), FARIDABAD

SPEEDY COURIER SERVICES PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD - 2(4), FARIDABAD