What is the leading case on section 115QA?

CIT v. Veekay Lal Investments Co. Pvt. Ltd. (249 ITR 597) is the decision most relied on for section 115QA, cited in 99 judgments on BharatTax. Book profits under Section 115JB must include income by way of capital gains, similar to how total income is calculated under Section 45.

Which cases are most cited on section 115QA?

CIT v. Veekay Lal Investments Co. Pvt. Ltd. (249 ITR 597) — 99 citing judgments; Sunrise Education Trust v. ITO(E) (92 Taxmann.com 74) — 20 citing judgments; Pentamedia Graphics Ltd. v. ITO (236 CTR 204) — 17 citing judgments; CIT v. G Narasimhan (236 ITR 327) — 15 citing judgments; Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bayer Vapi (P.) Ltd. (106 Taxmann.com 395) — 11 citing judgments.

How many judgments discuss section 115QA?

BharatTax indexes 31 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that discuss section 115QA (Section 115QA).

← All Phrases

“section 115QA”

Special Rate ProvisionsSection 115QASection 115QA31 judgments

The decision most relied on for section 115QA is CIT v. Veekay Lal Investments Co. Pvt. Ltd. (249 ITR 597), cited in 99 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on section 115QA

CIT v. Veekay Lal Investments Co. Pvt. Ltd.

249 ITR 597 · 2001 · High Court

citing judgments

Book profits under Section 115JB must include income by way of capital gains, similar to how total income is calculated under Section 45.

Sunrise Education Trust v. ITO(E)

92 Taxmann.com 74 · 2018 · High Court

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings are invalid if initiated based on factually incorrect reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, such as the erroneous belief that the assessee never filed a return. Such incorrect premises vitiate the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction.

Pentamedia Graphics Ltd. v. ITO

236 CTR 204 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

Once a scheme of arrangement is approved by a court and is within the bounds of the law, it is binding on tax authorities.

CIT v. G Narasimhan

236 ITR 327 · 1999 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Accumulated profits for the purpose of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) are to be computed in accordance with the Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS) rather than opening balances as per Indian GAAP. This case also touches upon the definition of 'transfer' under section 2(47).

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bayer Vapi (P.) Ltd.

106 Taxmann.com 395 · 2019 · High Court

citing judgments

Buyback of its own shares by a company is neither capital expenditure nor does it result in enduring benefits to the company. The consideration of non-deduction of TDS, which was evident from Form 3CD and not considered in the original assessment order, is not a change of opinion for reopening.

Genpact India (P). Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

111 Taxmann.com 402 · 2019 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

An assessee can challenge tax liability arising from special charging provisions, such as Section 115QA, by filing a separate appeal under Section 246A. Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT), as an additional tax not linked to the computation of total income, must be appealed independently.

100 ITD 173. (g) M/s. Balaram Manmani v. Asstt. CIT (Lucknow)

7 SOT 164 · 2006 · ITAT

citing judgments

Section 115JB(1) of the Income Tax Act, read with Explanation 1(i), governs the computation of book profits for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) purposes.

Vora Financial Services (P) Ltd. v. ACIT

96 Taxmann.com 88 · 2018 · ITAT

citing judgments

Shares bought back by a company are not considered the property of the assessee for the purpose of Section 56(2)(viia), as a company cannot hold its own shares as property.

Judgments citing section 115QA

Aptara Technologies Private Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 63/PUN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 115Section 115QSection 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

making payment of agreed value of buyback shares at Rs.4,99,98,564/- to Aptara Inc. USA. Ld. Assessing Officer discussed the provisions of section 115QA inserted by the Finance Act, 2013 as per which buyback of shares of unlisted domestic companies is made taxable in the hands ... company and as per section 115QA of the Act the distributed income, i.e. consideration paid by company on buyback of shares as reduced by the amount which was received by the company for issue of such shares is chargeable to tax. However, in the case of assessee the Fair Market

Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4800/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 1Section 143Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)

5481/D/2019 dated 2.8.2024 Rukmani Wires Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 11. Since, we have already held that provisions of section 115QA of the Act per se cannot be made applicable to the facts of the instant case, the provisions of section 10(34A) also consequentially would not have any application. Hence

ACIT, Chennai vs. Updater Services Limited, Chennai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by both the assessee and the Revenue, as well as the grounds raised in the cross-objections filed by the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical...

ITA 1616/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1339 /Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Updater Services Limited (Formerly Dcit, Known As Updater Services Private Vs. Central Circle -2(3), Limited), No.2/302-A, Uds Salai, Chennai. Off Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. [Pan:Aaacu-6845-J] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. K. Prasanna, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T

Section 115QSection 250Section 263Section 391Section 77A

extent prejudicial to the Appellant is erroneous, bad in law, and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Non-applicability of Section 115QA of the Act 2.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in interpreting that the order of the jurisdictional ITAT against the directions of the Principal ... Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Act curtails the rights of the Appellant to raise grounds on applicability of Section 115QA. 2.2 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the Hon'ble Chennai ITAT has addressed only the grounds raised in respect

M/S. Updater Services Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Chennai

ITA 1339/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. K. Prasanna, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T

Section 115QSection 250Section 263Section 391Section 77A

Nv Projects Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the

ITA 1418/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT, D/R

Section 36(1)(iii)

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CITYA) erred in deleting the tax levied under Section 115QA of the Income-fax Act, 1961, on the capital reduction undertaken by the assessee, failing to appreciate that the said transaction amounts to buyback ... shares and distribution of profits, and is therefore liable to tax as per the provisions of the said section 115QA of the Act?" 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld, CIT(A) erred in ignoring Explanation fil) to Section 115QA

DCIT-5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. N V Project Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the

ITA 1025/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT, D/R

Section 36(1)(iii)

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CITYA) erred in deleting the tax levied under Section 115QA of the Income-fax Act, 1961, on the capital reduction undertaken by the assessee, failing to appreciate that the said transaction amounts to buyback ... shares and distribution of profits, 8 and is therefore liable to tax as per the provisions of the said section 115QA of the Act?" 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld, CIT(A) erred in ignoring Explanation fil) to Section

Bhikhalal Prahaladrai Agarwal HUF, Gandhidham vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham

ITA 780/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.779&780/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2016-17) Bhikhalal Prahaladrai Agarwal- Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Huf, Gandhidham Circle C/O. Sarda & Sarda, Sakar, 1St It Office, Plot No. 32, Sector No. 3, Near Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishnan Road, Iffco Colony, Gandhidham Opp. Rajkumar College Rajkot Gandhidham - 370201 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabha4638R (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

share holder, on account of buy back of shares (other than shares listed on a recognized stock exchange) by the company referred to in Section 115QA of the Act, shall be exempt from tax, in the hands of the shareholder. 23. The assessing officer further observed that the assessee ... shareholder, on account of buy back of shares (not being listed on a recognized stock exchange) by the company, as referred to in section 115QA]" The assessing officer noted that as per the above section, the income is exempt only when the company complies with the provisions of section 115QA

Bhikhalal Prahladrai Agarwal HUF, Gandhidham vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham

ITA 779/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Lupin Investments Private Limited (Successor to Zyma Laboratories Limited), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 14(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4635/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, Shri Pratik PoddarFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT, D/R

Section 115QSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 35ASection 56(2)(viia)Section 80G

back of shares, without appreciating that in case of buy back of unlisted shares, the taxability is based on distributed income as per section 115QA of the Act. 2.2 Without prejudice, the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the circumstances and conditions for invoking section 56(2)(viia

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2844/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

taxmann.com 402 (SC)], where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an assessee can challenge tax liability under special charging provisions such as Section 115QA by filing a separate appeal under Section 246A. The Tribunal, in Texas Instruments, further clarified that the DDT, being an additional tax not linked

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2843/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

Vaibhav Global Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT, CC-4, Jaipur

ITA 1485/JPR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 115QSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 36(1)(va)

date for depositing PF was a public holiday. 5 Under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. AO has erred by invoking section 115QA of the Act and further erred by charging additional tax of distributed income in relation to buy back of shares of Rs.71 ... account of distributed income of Buy Back: 1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. AO has erred in invoking section 115QA of the Act and further erred by charging additional tax of distributed income in relation to buy back of shares of Rs.71

Vaibhav Global Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT, CC-4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1144/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 115QSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 36(1)(va)

date for depositing PF was a public holiday. - 5 Under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. AO has erred by invoking section 115QA of the Act and further erred by charging additional tax of distributed income in relation to buy back of shares ... account of distributed income of Buy Back:** - 1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. AO has erred in invoking section 115QA of the Act and further erred by charging additional tax of distributed income in relation to buy back of shares

Seabird Marine Services Private Limited, Jamnagar vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Jamnagar, Jamangar

ITA 83/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 83/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Seabird Marine Services Pvt. Vs. Ltd. Office No. 309 & 310, Centroid Luxuria, Nr. Crystal Mall, Khodiyar Colony, Aerodrome Road, Jamnagar 361006 Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Jamnagar, Aayakar Bhawan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar -Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccs 9869 C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2025 Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: आदेश / Order Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Dehi/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [In Short 'Ld. Cit(A)'], Dated 02.01.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 31.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “All The Below Mentioned Grounds Of Appeal Are Independent & Without Prejudices To Each Other.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 114Section 115JSection 143(3)

applicable to the assessee. However, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee has compensated these companies, by purchasing their shares. Therefore provision of section 115QA of the Act, is directly applicable, as there is reduction of share capital, by way of buy- back and of course consideration has been ... direction to the Assessing Officer to proceed against the assessee, in terms of provisions of section 2(22)(d) of the Act and Section 115QA in respect of capital reduction of Rs.2.71 crores. The learned Counsel submitted that such enhancement order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is without

Anshul Anil Goel, Pune vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (1) 1, Pune

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

ITA 2537/PUN/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2024-25

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(1)Section 206CSection 64

assessee to be assessed under Section 143(3) as contended, there would be no appellate remedy in case of any determination under Section 115QA. The issues may arise not just confined to the question whether the company is liable at all but may also relate to other facets including ... therefore, reject the submissions advanced by the appellant and hold that an appeal would be maintainable against the determination of liability under Section 115QA of the Act.‖ 18. In view of the above discussion and respectfully following the decisions cited (supra), we hold that depriving the assessee of due credit

ACIT Circle-58(1), Delhi vs. Magical Enterprises L.L.P, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1059/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumar[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Acit Vs Magical Enterprises L.L.P Circle-58(1) 80, Kiran Vihar Delhi. New Delhi-110092. Pan-Abafm4809Q Appellant Respondent

Section 10Section 112Section 115QSection 143(3)

allowing the exemption u/s 10(34A) of Rs. 2,34,91,510/- to the assessee on the mere fact that the provisions of section 115QA was introduced w.e.f 01.06.2013 and Section 10(34A) was introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2014 in the Income Tax Act, whereas, the transaction under investigation was completed ... which also stood concluded in the assessments of these 5 companies. Hence, I do not find any violation of provision of Section 115QA or Section 10(34A) to disallow the appellant's claim merely on some vague findings and that too of past several years like

Rukmani Wires Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-21(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5481/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarrukmani Wires Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, G-1087, Dsiidc Industrial Circle-1(2), Complex Area, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaccr7552F

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 115QSection 143(3)Section 18Section 271(1)Section 46ASection 48

SHOWN IN ITR: In the ITR the assessee has filed its income u/s 46A of Income Tax Act [read before insertion of section 115QA] Cost of acquisition FY 2007-2008 Rs 1,93,75,000/- Indexed cost of acquisition u/s 48 is 1,93,75,000 x 1024/551 ... Long Term loss after Indexation Rs 2,81,47,885/- The assessee company filed its ITR to the best of its knowledge. Section 115QA was introduced recently w.e.f 01- 06-2013, the assessee company had no knowledge of the same. The assessee company has no objection if its income

ACIT Circle-1(3)(1) Int. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Anand Swarup Gupta, New Delhi

ITA 2371/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19 Acit Circle-1(3)(1), Vs. Sh. Anand Swarup Gupta, (Intl. Tax), Ibc M-38/1 Middle Circle, Room No. 501, Connaught Place, D-Block,Civic Centre, New Delhi – 110 001 New Delhi 110 002 Pan Aappg3467Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 68

hands of the shareholder and the company had duly paid taxes of Rs 1,14,93,317/- under section 115QA of the Act (tax on distributed income to shareholders by way of back of shares) on such buy back. It was argued that the action of the AO is unjustified

ACIT-1(2)(1, Mumbai vs. Meriton Infotech Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 741/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Meriton Infotech Pvt. Ltd. G-4, Khetan Bhavan, Acit -1(2)(1) Ek Omkar Premises Co- Room No. 535, Aaykar Ops, Bhavan, Vs. 198, Jamshedji Tata Road, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecm4348N Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR

Section 101Section 115Section 115QSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the levying tax of Rs. 19,92,58,167 under section 115QA of the Act, on the capital reduction transaction undertaken by the company during the year- made by the A.O. without appreciating the fact that the share ... capital reduction by payments to the shareholders is buy-back of shares and provisions of section 115QA of the Act is attracted." 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the alleged reduction

Fil India Business & Research Services P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Dc, Circle-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1358/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Chandra Mohan Gargfil India Business & Vs. Dc Research Services P. Ltd., Circle – 7(1) Private Studio – New Delhi Ncr/Ac/Ps/00/010B, Ground Floor, Worldmark 1, Asset Area 11, Aerocity, Hospitality District, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi-110 002 Pan : Aabcf 1572 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri K. M. Gupta, Adv. Shri Rishabh Malhotra, A.R. & Shri Bhavya Gupta, C.A. Revenue By Shri Amaresh Singh, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.01.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

erred in denying the credit of buy back tax amounting to INR 18,356,916 deposited by the Appellant as per section 115QA of the Act vide challan dated 29 September 2017 and incorrectly levying a consequential interest of INR 10,096,304 under section 115QB ... equity shares and assessee had deposited Buy Back Tax (BBT) amounting to Rs.1,83,56,916/- as per the provisions of section 115QA of the Act on 29th Sep, 2017. He submitted that in the final assessment order the credit for Rs.1,83,56,916/- has not been granted