Sunrise Academy of Medical Specialities (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO

409 ITR 109High Court2018#11903 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 344,197 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2023.

Judgments citing Sunrise Academy of Medical Specialities (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO

Reconnect Energy Solution P Lt, Bengaluru vs. The DCIT 4(1) Indore, Indore

In the result, the appeal of assesse is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 182/IND/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoreconnect Energy Solution Ltd. Dcit 1(4) No.22, Vk Kalyani, 7Th Floor Indore Vs. Sankey Road, Bengaluru (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aafcr 0074 H Assessee By Shri Anil Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 06.12.2023

Section 40aSection 56Section 56(2)(viib)

…above the fair market value of the shares is required to be added u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in case of Sunrise Academy of Medical Specialties (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO 409 ITR 109. He has also relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 5. I have considered the rival submission as well as relevant material on record. There is no dispute so far as the relevant facts are concerned that the assessee converted redeemable preferential shares into equity share at conversion price of Rs.470 which includes premium of Rs.460…

Extol Wind Ltd, Bhopal vs. The ITO Ward 1 (3), Bhopal

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 30/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniextol Wind Ltd. Ito Ward 1(3) 104, Jahangirbad Barkhedi Bhopal Vs. Road, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaace 8607 N Assessee By Shri Pawan Ved, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.07.2023

Section 56(2)(viib)

…ecision of Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in case of Royal Accord Realtors (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT 195 ITD 287. 5. Ld. DR has also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Sunrise Academy of Medical Specialities (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO 409 ITR 109 and submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that any premium received by the assesse on sale of shares, in excess of its face value would be treated as income from other sources in terms of provision of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 6. In rejoinder the Ld. AR of the assesse has sub…

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

…d 8 individuals. It was also submitted that double additions are not possible . The ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Sunrise Academy of Medical Specialties India Private Limited , reported in (2018) 409 ITR 109(Kerala HC) , and it was submitted that double addition is not possible. It was also submitted that only one addition can be sustained , if it is proved that transaction is genuine than only Section 56(2)(viib) will come into play , but if Section 68 gets attracted as the tax-payer is not able to satisfactorily explain the source of capital invest…

M/S. Waterline Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 388/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Waterline Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 10Th Floor, Gamma Block, Of Income Tax, Sigma Soft Tech Park No.07, Circle 7(1)(2), Airport Varthur Road, Bangalore. Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aaacw 8059N Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Pranav Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals)-7, Bengaluru Dated 27.3.2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised 18 Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Page 2 Of 20

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 271Section 40Section 56(2)(viib)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2013-14 Waterline Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 10th Floor, Gamma Block, of Income Tax, Sigma Soft Tech Park No.07, Circle 7(1)(2), Airport Varthur Road, Bangalore. Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. PAN: AAACW 8059N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Pranav Krishna, Advocate Respondent by : Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 29.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accoun…

M/S. Vbhc Value Homes Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ward- 7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2016-17 is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 37/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiappeal No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year M/S. Vbhc Value Homes Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 2015-16 74-75 Millers Road, Vasanthnagar, Ward – 7(1)(3), Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaccv 7868 G The Assistant Commissioner 2016-17 -Do- Of Income Tax, Ward – 7(1)(2), Bengaluru. S.P. No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 29/Bang/2020 M/S. Vbhc Value Homes Income Tax Officer, 2015-16 Pvt. Ltd., Ward – 7(1)(3), (In Ita No.2541/Bang/2019) Pan : Aaccv 7868 G Bengaluru. 59/Bang/2020 -Do- The Assistant Commissioner 2016-17 Of Income Tax, (In Ita No. 37/Bang/2020) Ward – 7(1)(2), Bengaluru. Assessee/S.P. By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 10/06/2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/06/2020 O R D E R Per A. K. Garodia

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 14ASection 56(2)

…. P. Nos. 29 and 59/Bang/2020 Page 8 of 18 She filed a copy of this Tribunal order. She also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Kerala High Court rendered in the case of Sunrise Academy of Medical Specialities (India) (P.) Ltd., Vs. ITO as reported in 409 ITR 109 (Kerala). She also placed reliance on the Tribunal order of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Agro Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ITO as reported in 171 ITD 74. In the rejoinder, it was submitted by learned AR of the assessee that in the case of Innoviti Payment Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (supra), the Tribunal has followed the judgme…

M/S. Vbhc Value Homes Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 7(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2016-17 is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 2541/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 14ASection 56(2)

M/S.Sahyadri Agencies Ltd, Kandnassery, Thrissur vs. The ITO, WD-1(3), Thrissur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 439/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Bomi Daruwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…nd section 68 of the I.T.Act in respect of issuance of OPCCPS. The CIT also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case 4 M/s.Sahyadri Agencies Limited. of Sunrise Academy of Medical Specialities (India) (P) Ltd. v. ITO [(2018) 409 ITR 109 (Ker.)] and held that when a private limited company receives share application money above the face value, section 56(2)(viib) of the I.T.Act gets attracted. The relevant finding of the CIT while setting aside the assessment order by invoking the revisionary powers u/s 263 of the I.T.Act reads as follows:- “8. Finance Act, 2012 inserted clause…

Sadhvi Securities P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circler-5, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1047/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Sadhvi Securities P. Ltd., Vs Acit, 13/34, Wea, Arya Samaj Road, Central Circle-5, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aahcs7130D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.P. Gupta & Shri Anunav Kumar, Advocates Revenue By : Shri S.S. Rana, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.07.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15Th January, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-24, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Share Trading. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 27.11.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.910/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noted That The Assessee Has Introduced Share Capital By Issuing 1800000 Equity Shares Of Rs.10 Each At A Premium Of Rs.90 Per Share Aggregating To Rs.18 Crore In The Balance Sheet As On 31.03.2014. Since The Assessee Has Charged Very High Premium On The Shares So Allotted, The Assessing Officer Asked The Assessee To Furnish Complete

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Gupta &For Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT, DR

Section 56(2)(viib)

…plied by assessee, Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting DCF method and adopting Net Asset Value method. Referring to the decision in the case of Sunrise Academy Of Medical Specialities India Pvt Ltd Vs ITO [2018] 96 taxmann.com 43 (Kerala) reported in 409 ITR 109, he submitted that the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the said decision has held that in case of a company in which public is not substantially interested, any premium received by said Company on sale of shares, in excess of its face value, would be treated as income from other sources, satisfactory explanation under section 68 would not save Compa…

M/S. Tara Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1572/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1572/DEL/2017 A.Y. : 2011-12 M/S TARA MERCANTILE PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 16(1), 314-315, PP TOWER, NEW DELHI NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE, PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI – 34 (PAN: AAACT2680C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee By : Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. Department By : Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the impugned order dated 19.1.2017 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-9, New Delhi on the following grounds:- 1. The…