Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd. v. PCIT

164 DTR 257High Court2018#1655 most cited

What is Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd. v. PCIT authority for?

An assessee has the option to choose either the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method or the Net Asset Value (NAV) method for share valuation under Section 56(2)(viib) read with Rule 11UA. The Assessing Officer cannot substitute the chosen method or value without identifying a specific error in the assessee's valuation.

69

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd. v. PCIT · Section 56(2)(viib) · Rule 11UA · share valuation · Fair Market Value · DCF method · NAV method · assessee's option · AO substitution of valuation · valuation of shares income tax · Bombay High Court

Also reported as

92 Taxmann.com 73256 Taxmann 240

Sections most often in play

Section 56(2)(viib)Section 143(3)Section 11UASection 115JBSection 147Section 148Section 35ADSection 35AD(7B)

Issues it is cited on

nav methoddcf methodsection 2(19aa)section 56(2)(viib)section 35advaluation of sharescommercial rightssection 55acommercial substancesection 13(2)intangible assetsslump sale

Judgments citing Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd. v. PCIT

Dy CIT 6 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Credtalpha Alternative Investment Advisors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 7056/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishithe Dy. Commissioner Of Credtalpha Alternative Income Tax 6(2) (1) Investment Advisors Pvt Ltd Room No. 504, 8Th Floor, Ashford Centre, Aykar Bhavan Vs. Shankar Rao Narayan Marg Maharishi Karve Road , Lower Parel , Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 Pan No. Aaecc6357K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rahul SardaFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar DR
Section 56

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER The Dy. Commissioner of Credtalpha Alternative Income Tax 6(2) (1) Investment Advisors Pvt Ltd Room No. 504, 8th Floor, Ashford Centre, Aykar Bhavan Vs. Shankar Rao Narayan Marg Maharishi Karve Road , Lower Parel , Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 PAN No. AAECC6357K Appellant .. Respondent Revenue by : Shri Ashish Kumar DR Assessee by : Shri Rahul Sarda Advocate Date of hearing : 16.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 19.01.2022 ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 1. This appea…

ACIT, Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. Airpay Payment Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 5074/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.5074/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit – 2(1)(1), M/S Airpay Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 561, 5Th Floor बिाम/ 104, Vithaldas Chambers Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road Mumbai Samachar Marg Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 023 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aakca-4619-A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Mehul Jain- Ld. Sr. Dr Assessee By : Shri S.C.Tiwari – Ld. Ar ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 16/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 23/11/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)] Dated 15/05/2019 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) On 24/12/2018. The Sole Ground Raised By The Revenue Read As Under:- 1. "On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit Erred In Holding That The Valuation Of Shares Submitted By The Assessee Is Quite Realistic & Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Without Appreciating The Facts In Relation To Flaws Pointed Out By The Assessing Officer In The Valuation Report Submitted By The Assessee For Issue Of Shares At An Exorbitant & Unjustified Premium."

For Appellant: Shri S.C.Tiwari – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

…1 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री महावीर स िंह, उपाध्यक्ष एवुं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा दस्य के मक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.5074/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) ACIT – 2(1)(1), M/s Airpay Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 561, 5th floor बिाम/ 104, Vithaldas Chambers Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road Mumbai Samachar Marg Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 023 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ PAN/GIR No. AAKCA-4619-A (अपीलाथी/Appellan…

K.P. Woven Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 169/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.169/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 K.P. Woven Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O., 13-B, Navbharat Society, Vs. Ward-2(1)(2) Usmanpura, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380013. Pan: Aaeck6307M

For Appellant: Ms Asthamaniar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R.Makwana, Sr..D.R
Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ B’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And Ms MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.169/AHD/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 K.P. Woven Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O., 13-B, Navbharat Society, Vs. Ward-2(1)(2) Usmanpura, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380013. PAN: AAECK6307M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms Asthamaniar, A.R Revenue by : Shri R.R.Makwana, Sr..D.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 29/09/2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 25/10/2021…

Slx Logistics Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result appeal filed by assessee allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1957/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Slx Logistics Pvt. Ltd., 107, Salarpuria Cambridge The Deputy Residency, Commissioner Of 32/2, 1St Cross, Income Tax, Someshwara Layout, Circle 6(1)(1), Ulsoor, Vs. Bangalore. Bengaluru – 560 068. Pan: Aavcs0482N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Navaneeth N Kini, Ca Revenue By : Shri K. Sankarganesh, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-09-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2021 Order Per Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Navaneeth N Kini, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankarganesh, JCIT (DR)
Section 142Section 56(2)(viib)

…by the AO we notice that the ITAT, Bangalore Bench in the case of VBHC Value Homes Pvt. Ltd., Vs ITO in ITA No.2541/Bang/2019 order dated 12-06-2020, after relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone M- Pesa Ltd Vs Pr.CIT 164 DTR 257 and decision of the ITAT, Bangalore Bench in the case of Innoviti Payment Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs ITO(2019) 102 Taxmann.com 59 held as follows:- "9. We have considered the rival submissions. First of all, we reproduce paras 11 to 14 from the Tribunal order cited by learned AR of the assessee having been rendered in the case of Innoviti Payment So…

3P Technologies India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 7(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 238/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K.And Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year:2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, D.R
Section 11USection 56(2)(viib)

…n of shares under DCF method in the case of Innoviti Payment Solutions P Ltd (supra) and has followed the decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. 3P Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 4 of 13 Vodafone M Pesa Ltd vs. PCIT (164 DTR 257). Accordingly, it was held that the AO should scrutinize the valuation report prepared under DCF method and if necessary, he can carry out fresh valuation either by himself or by calling a final determination from an independent valuer to confront the assessee. The AO cannot change the method of valuation and he has follow DCF method only. The de…

Mesers Him Agri Fesh Pvt. Ltd, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Oficer Ward-1(2), Jalandhar

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 224/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 224/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 224/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s Him Agri Fesh Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer, 518, J.P. Nagar, Jalandhar Ward-1(2), Jalandhar [PAN: AACCH 8112M] (Appellant) (Respendent) Appellant by Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Respondent by Smt. Ratinder Kaur, D. R. Date of Hearing 06.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement 07.07.2021 ORDER Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.02.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Inc…

M/S. Town Essential Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 7, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 139/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Town Essential Private Limited, Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax 54/1, Industrial Suburb, (Appeals)-7, Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 022. Pan : Aabct 4200 D Appellant Respondent Appellant By : None (Adjournment Request Refused) Respondent By : Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2021 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–7, Bangalore, Dated 29.11.2019 In Relation To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Only Issue Involved In The Appeal Is As To Whether The Revenue Authorities Were Justified In Invoking Provisions Of Section 56(2)(Viib) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) & Bringing To Tax The Difference Between The Fair Market Value & The Issue Price Of Shares At A Premium As Income Of The Assessee. Section 21 Clause (B) Of Finance Act, 2012 Introduced Sec.56(2)(Viib) Of The Act With Effect From The 1St Day Of April, 2013 & The Said Provisions Reads Thus:-

For Appellant: None (Adjournment request refused)For Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10Section 14Section 21Section 56(2)(viib)

…by the AO we notice that the ITAT, Bangalore Bench in the case of VBHC Value Homes Pvt. Ltd., Vs ITO in ITA No.2541/Bang/2019 order dated 12-06-2020, after relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone M- Pesa Ltd Vs Pr.CIT 164 DTR 257 and decision of the ITAT, Bangalore Bench in the case of Innoviti Payment Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs ITO(2019) 102 Taxmann.com 59 held as follows:- “9. We have considered the rival submissions. First of all, we reproduce paras 11 to 14 from the Tribunal order cited by learned AR of the assessee having been rendered in the case of Innoviti Payment…

M/S. Ukn Hospitality Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 7(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2170/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Ukn Hospitality Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 10Th Floor, Gamma Block, Sigma Soft Tech Ward – 7(1)(2), Park, No.7, Airport Varthur Road, Bengaluru. Whitefield Main Road, Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 8470 B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri S. V. Ravishankar Advocate Respondent By : Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2021 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–10, Bangalore, Dated 8.3.2019 In Relation To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. There Is A Delay Of About 132 Days In Filing This Appeal By The Assessee. The Reasons For The Delay Is Owing To The Fact That Mr.K.Ravindran, The Group Cfo & Director Who Was Handling The Matter Did Not Bring To The Notice Of The Group Chairman About The Impugned Order. Mr.K.Ravindran Was Made To Resign As Director Due To Various Issues & He Stopped Attending Office Since April, 2019. The Chartered Account Who Appeared Before Cit(A) In A Meeting With The Officials On Page 2 Of 12 30.9.2019 Found That No Action Had Been Taken Against The Impugned Order & Thereafter The Appeal Had Been Filed.

For Appellant: Shri S. V. Ravishankar AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10Section 14Section 21Section 56(2)(viib)

…the ITAT, Bangalore Bench in the case of VBHC Value Homes Pvt. Ltd., Vs ITO in ITA No.2541/Bang/2019 order dated 12- 06-2020, the Tribunal after relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay Page 6 of 12 High Court in the case of Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd Vs Pr.CIT 164 DTR 257 and decision of the ITAT, Bangalore Bench in the case of Innoviti Payment Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs ITO(2019) 102 Taxmann.com 59 held as follows:- “9. We have considered the rival submissions. First of all, we reproduce paras 11 to 14 from the Tribunal order cited by learned AR of the assessee having been rendered in the case of Innoviti Payment…

DCIT, Corp Cir-1(1), Chennai vs. Avigana Housing Pvt Ltd, Chennai

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

ITA 521/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr.M.Karunakaran, Advocate
Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी.दुगा" राव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी.मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम% BEFORE SHRI V.DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.521/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) The Deputy Commissioner of Income Vs M/s. Avigna Housing Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.1822, 1st Block, Tax, 13th Main Road, Anna Nagar Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai-600 034. West. Chennai-600 040. PAN: AAKCA 6239J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr. G.Chandrababu, Sr.AR अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant by…

M/S. Innaccel Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 146/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Siddana Biradar, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. R.Premi, D.R
Section 56(2)(viib)

…that the co-ordinate bench has examined the issue of valuation of shares under DCF method in the case of Innoviti Payment Solutions P Ltd (supra) and has followed the decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone M Pesa Ltd vs. PCIT (164 DTR 257). Accordingly, it was held that the AO should scrutinize the valuation report prepared under DCF method and if necessary, he can carry out fresh valuation either by himself or by calling a final M/s. Innaccel Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 4 of 13 determination from an independent valuer to confront the assessee. The AO cannot change the…

Tsi Yatra Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, Range-25, New Delhi

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

ITA 1068/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.1068/DEL/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 TSI Yatra Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, United Cyber Park, Range-25, Ist Floor, Sector-39, New Delhi. Gurgaon, Haryana. TAN/PAN: AABCT7696P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Respondent by: Shri S.S. Rana, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing: 20 11 2020 Date of pronouncement: 14 12 2020 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee aggrieved against impugned order, dated…

M/S. Saahas Waste Management Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1881/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K.And Shri B.R. Baskaranassessmentyear:2016-17

For Appellant: Shri H.V. Goutham, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, D.R
Section 56(2)(viib)

…ITA No.1881/Bang/2019 M/s. Saahas Waste Management (P) Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBERAND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AssessmentYear:2016-17 M/s. Saahas Waste Management (P) Ltd. No.21, 5th ‘C’ Cross, 16th Main Deputy Commissioner of BTM 2nd Stage Vs. Income-tax Bangalore-560 076 Circle-6(1)(1) Bangalore PAN NO : AATCS5284J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri H.V. Goutham, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, D.R. Date of Hearing : 03.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 01.12.2020 O R D E R PER B.R.…

M/S. Canvera Digital Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 316/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.K Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, JCIT (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 56(2)(viib)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2015-16 Canvera Digital Technologies Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd., Income-tax, No.36/5, Ground Floor, Circle-2(1)(1), 27th Main Road, HSR Layout, Bengaluru. Somasundara Palya, Haralukunte Village, Bengaluru-560 102. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 29.10.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 02.11.2020 O R D E R PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Pr…

M/S. Gs E-Commerce Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 335/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Gse Commerce Private Ltd. No.41, Medsoft Building Tata Silk Farm Acit Kankapura Main Road Vs. Circle-3(1)(2) Basavangudi Bangalore Bangalore-560 004 Pan No : Aafcg0578B Appellant Respondent S.P. No.91/Bang/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No.335/Bang/2020) Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Gse Commerce Private Ltd. Acit Circle-3(1)(2) Vs. Bangalore-560 004 Bangalore Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh Gupta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, D.R
Section 56(2)(viib)

…that the co-ordinate bench has examined the issue of valuation of shares under DCF method in the case of Innoviti Payment Solutions P Ltd (supra) and has followed the decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone M Pesa Ltd vs. PCIT (164 DTR 257). Accordingly, it was held that the AO should scrutinize the valuation report prepared under DCF method and if necessary, he can carry out fresh valuation either by himself or by calling a final determination from an independent valuer to confront the assessee. The AO cannot change the method of valuation and he has follow DCF method only. The de…

Valencia Nutrition Limited (Earlier Known As Valencia Nutrition Private Limited), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 474/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K.And Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Sudheendra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, D.R
Section 56(2)(viib)

…that the co-ordinate bench has examined the issue of valuation of shares under DCF method in the case of Innoviti Payment Solutions P Ltd (supra) and has followed the decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone M Pesa Ltd vs. PCIT (164 DTR 257). Accordingly, it was held that the AO should scrutinize the valuation report prepared under DCF method and if necessary, he can carry out fresh valuation either by himself or by calling a final determination from an independent valuer to confront the assessee. The AO cannot change the method of valuation and he has follow DCF method only. The de…

Valencia Nutrition Limited (Earlier Known As Valencia Nutrition Private Limited), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 473/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K.And Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Sudheendra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, D.R
Section 56(2)(viib)

…that the co-ordinate bench has examined the issue of valuation of shares under DCF method in the case of Innoviti Payment Solutions P Ltd (supra) and has followed the decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone M Pesa Ltd vs. PCIT (164 DTR 257). Accordingly, it was held that the AO should scrutinize the valuation report prepared under DCF method and if necessary, he can carry out fresh valuation either by himself or by calling a final determination from an independent valuer to confront the assessee. The AO cannot change the method of valuation and he has follow DCF method only. The de…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Antariksh Softech Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2534/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14Section 21Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N V VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year: 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Antariksh Softech P. Ltd., Income Tax, No.11/1, KHR House Palace Circle 1(1)(1), Road, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 052. PAN: AAHCA 1836G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Revenue by : Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate Date of hearing : 01.10.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 09.10.2020 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President This appeal by the revenue is against the or…

M/S. Taaq Music Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 161/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Balram R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10Section 14Section 21Section 56(2)(viib)

…attention of the ITAT, Bangalore Bench in the case of VBHC Value Homes Pvt. Ltd., Vs ITO in ITA No.2541/Bang/2019 order dated 12-06-2020, the Tribunal after relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd Vs Pr.CIT 164 DTR 257 and decision of the ITAT, Bangalore Bench in the case of Innoviti Payment Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs ITO(2019) 102 Taxmann.com 59 held as follows:- “9. We have considered the rival submissions. First of all, we reproduce paras 11 to 14 from the Tribunal order cited by learned AR of the assessee having been rendered in the case of Innoviti Payment…

M/S. Mehta Gold Palace Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 927/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accoutant Member Assessmentyear: 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Sheethal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, D.R
Section 11USection 44ASection 50(2)(viib)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 56(2)(viiib)

…coordinate bench of ITAT has rendered a decision in the case of M/s. Futura Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITA No.3404/Bang/2018), wherein the Tribunal has followed the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone Mpaisa Ltd. 164 DTR 257 and held that DCF method of valuation is also recognised method of valuation under rule 11UA. 6. We notice that the valuation report dated 22.7.2015 obtained from a Chartered Accountant named Shri Prasanna Adiga has not been considered by the A.O. We also notice that the accountant has followed DCF method of valuation for determining the value o…

M/S I-Exceed Technology Solutions Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1181/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accoutant Member Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, D.R
Section 56(2)(viib)

…following decision rendered by another bench of Tribunal in the case of VBHC Value Homes in ITA No.2541/Bang/2019 order dated 12-06- 2020, which in turn followed the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafore m- pesa Ltd Vs Pr.CIT 164 DTR 257. For the sake of convenience, we extract below the relevant discussions made by the Tribunal in the case of Futura Business Solutions P Ltd (supra):- “17. With regard to the correctness of DCF method adopted by the Assessee for valuing shares and the procedure to be followed when such method of valuation is not accepted by the AO, the ld. counse…