How many judgments cite Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd. v. PCIT?

69 judgments on BharatTax cite Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd. v. PCIT (164 DTR 257), spanning 2019 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd. v. PCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 56(2)(viib), Section 143(3), Section 11UA, Section 115JB, Section 147, Section 148.

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.

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 11UA Section 115JB Section 147 Section 148 Section 35AD Section 35AD(7B)

Issues it is cited on

nav method dcf method section 2(19aa)section 56(2)(viib)section 35ad valuation of shares commercial rights section 55a commercial substance section 13(2)intangible assets slump sale

Judgments citing Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd. v. PCIT

M/S.Karmic Labs Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 15(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3955/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2014-15 Karmic Labs Pvt.Ltd. Ito,Ward-15(2)(1) B-1, 2302, The Address, Opposite Aaykar Bhawan Vs. R-City Mall, Lbs Marg M.K.Road Ghatkopar(West) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 086

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri R.Bhupathi

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “H”, MUMBAI Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Amarjit Singh, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2014-15 Karmic Labs Pvt.Ltd. ITO,Ward-15(2)(1) B-1, 2302, The address, Opposite Aaykar Bhawan Vs. R-City Mall, LBS Marg M.K.Road Ghatkopar(West) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 086 PAN: AACCK7809G (Assessee) (Revenue) Revenue By : Shri R.Bhupathi Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved Date of Hearing : 10/07/2020 Date of Pronouncement : 28 /07/2020 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member 1. The Assessee by way of this appeal is challenging the order of the…

M/S Antariksh Softtech Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 83/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jul 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Antariksh Softtech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, #11/1, Khr House, Palace Road, Ward – 1(1)(2), Bengaluru – 560 017. Bengaluru. Pan : Aahca 1836 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Prathibha, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Tshering Ongela, Addl.Cit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2020 O R D E R Per A. K. Garodia, Am:

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Tshering Ongela, Addl.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 2Section 234BSection 4Section 56Section 56(2)

…(Bang.), (ii) the tribunal order rendered in the case of M/s. VBHC Value Homes Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 2541/Bang/2019 dated 12.06.2020, (iii) the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd. vs. PCIT as reported in 164 DTR 257. In these judicial pronouncements, it was held that AO cannot change the method of valuation of shares chosen by the assessee which is DCF Method in the present case and in these three cases. If the AO finds that the said person Smt. Vijayalakshmi is a resident in India in Page 7 of 7 the present year, the effect of provisions of section 56(2) (v…

M/S. Signure Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1670/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Signure Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No.18, 2Nd Floor, 80 Feet Road, Income-Tax, Koramangala 4Th Block, Circle – 6(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 034. Bengaluru. Pan : Aalcs 4781 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. R. Premi, Jcit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2020 O R D E R Per A. K. Garodia, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 10.05.2019 For Assessment Year 2015-16. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 234ASection 56Section 62

…ther pointed out that in that earlier order rendered in the case of Innoviti Payment Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ITO (supra), the Tribunal has followed the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd. vs. PCIT as reported in 164 DTR 257 and it was held that as per the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court, the AO can scrutinise the valuation report and determine a fresh Page 4 of 9 valuation either by himself or by calling for a final determination from an independent valuer to confront the petitioner but the basis has to be the DCF Method and he cannot change the valuation meth…

M/S Flutura Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3404/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaranita No.3404(Bang)/2018 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) M/S Flutura Business Solutions Pvt.Ltd., G-1, Gurupriya Seventh Hill, Bg 12/2/13, 4Th Cross, Iti Hbcs Layout, Bsk 3Rd Stage, Bengaluru-560 004 Pan No.Aabcf9125B Appellant Vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Room No.209, 2Nd Floor, Bmtc Building, Koramanagala, Bangalore Respondent Appellant By : Shri C.Ramesh, Ca Revenue By : Shri Priyadharshini Misra, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Shri C.Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadharshini Misra, Addl.CIT

Section 56(2)(viib)

…in the case of VBHC Value Homes 7 M/S.Futura Business Solutions (P) Ltd. 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 Innovit 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 Solu…

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)

…and 59/Bang/2020 Page 9 of 18 the same are based on sound reasoning and rationale basis. In the same tribunal order, a judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court is also taken note of having been rendered in the case of Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd. vs. PCIT as reported in 164 DTR 257. The tribunal has reproduced part of Para 9 of this judgment but we reproduce herein below full Para 9 of this judgment. "9. We note that, the Commissioner of Income-Tax in the impugned order dated 23rd February, 2018 does not deal with the primary grievance of the petitioner. This, even after he concedes with the method of valuation namely, NAV…

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 Ibs Fintech India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 2779/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Ibs Fintech India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, No.222/14, Iii Floor, 5Th Main, Ward – 3(1)(4), Bellary Road, Vs. Bengaluru. Sadashivanagar, Bengaluru – 560 080. Pan : Aabci 6829 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Krishna Upadhya, Ca Revenue By : Shri. A. Ramesh Kumar, Jcit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Krishna Upadhya, CAFor Respondent: Shri. A. Ramesh Kumar, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 251Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2015-16 M/s. IBS Fintech India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, No.222/14, III Floor, 5th Main, Ward – 3(1)(4), Bellary Road, Vs. Bengaluru. Sadashivanagar, Bengaluru – 560 080. PAN : AABCI 6829 H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Krishna Upadhya, CA Revenue by : Shri. A. Ramesh Kumar, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru Date of hearing : 03.03.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 29.05.2020 O R D E R Per A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by…

Narang Access Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Narang Danone Access Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT - 13(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3521/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri M Balaganesh, Am

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jotwani, ARFor Respondent: Shri N. Hemlatha, DR

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “B” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री श्री एम बालगणेश, लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI M BALAGANESH, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3521/Mum/2018 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2013-14) Narang Access Pvt. Ltd. Hall No.3, B-869, Sarkar Heritage, Kane Road ……………. Appellant and B.J.Road, Bandstand, Bandra West, Mumbai-400 050 PAN – AACCN5922H v/s The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle–13(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, …………….Respondent 2nd Floor, Mumbai-400 020 अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellan…

M/S Innoviti Payment Solutions Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1278/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumarm/S. Innoviti Payment Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Appellant No. 41, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Ngr The Edge, Iii Main, V Cross, Sai Baba Mandir Road, Halasuru, Bengaluru – 560008. Pan. Aabci0504M Vs The Ito, Ward – 3 (1) (1), Respondent Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri B. M. Tambakar, C. A. Revenue By : Shri R. N. Sidappaji, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 07 – 12 – 2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09 – 01 – 2019 O R D E R Per Bench: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Which Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit (A) – 3, Bangalore Dated 23.02.2018 For A. Y. 2014 – 15. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Grounds Relating To Natural Justice The Learned Income Tax Officer 3(1)(1) (Hereinafter " Ad") & The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 3 (Hereinafter "Cit-A") Have Erred In Passing The Order Without Considering All The Submissions & / Or Without Appreciating Properly The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law Applicable. 2. Grounds Relating To Rejection Of Equity Shares Valuation Report Issued By Independent Chartered Accountant The Order Of The Learned Ao Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act') & Confirmed By Learned Cit-A Is Erroneous In Reckoning That Share Premium Collected Is Above Fair Market Value & Thereby Liable To Tax In Pursuance To Section 56(2)(Viib) By Adopting Rule 11Ua(A) To The Exclusion Of The Option Under Rule 11Ua(B) As Opted By The Assessee Without Taking

For Appellant: Shri B. M. Tambakar, C. AFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Sidappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)

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

…ications/alterations provided the same are based on sound reasoning and rationale basis. In the same tribunal order, a judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court is also taken note of having been rendered in the case of Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd. vs. PCIT as reported in 164 DTR 257. The tribunal has reproduced part of Para 9 of this judgment but we reproduce herein below full Para 9 of this judgment. “9. We note that, the Commissioner of Income-Tax in the impugned order dated 23rd February, 2018 does not deal with the primary grievance of the petitioner. This, even after he concedes with the method of valuation namely, NAV…