closely held company — 300 judgments | BharatTax

ASIRVAD MICRO FINANCE LIMITED,ANNA SALAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(1), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1139/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1139/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. P.R. Prasanna Varma, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N., CIT

Explanation to clause (23FB) of section 10; 7. From the plain reading of the above provision it is clear that if a closely held company receives any consideration during the year for issue shares in excess of the face value, then the excess over the fair market value will ... series of measures to deter the generation and use of unaccounted money. To this end, I propose— **** * Increasing the onus of proof on closely held companies for funds received from shareholders as well as taxing share premium in excess of fair market value. * Taxing of unexplained money, credits, investments, expenditures

ASCENTECH ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1686/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad06 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

For Appellant: MS Sree Lekha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Mathivanan S A, Sr. AR

Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

accepted the DCF method as appropriate for\nfair market value as under:\n\"Introduction:\n1. M/s Diabetomics Medical Private Limited, a closely held company,\nincorporated on 16.06.2015 with the objective of manufacturing and\ncommercialization of medical diagnostic products relating to Diabetes\nand pregnancy for early diagnosis of Pre-eclampsia, Geostational

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)

analysis and findings with regard to the applicability of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act: Section 56(2)(viib) applies where a closely held company receives consideration for issue of shares from a resident in excess of FMV. In the present case shares were admittedly issued during the relevant

KARADI PATH EDUCATION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. COMMISSIONER, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1848/CHNY/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

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

section 56(2)(viib) of the\nAct is attracted in the facts of the present case. Section 56(2)(viib) applies\nwhere a closely held company “receives... any consideration for issue of\nshares" exceeding FMV. In the present case, no fresh consideration was\nreceived during the year of allotment. What

HOLLIS VITRIFIED PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI, GUJARAT, INDIA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT, GUJARAT, INDIA

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

ITA 363/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 363/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Hollis Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No. 756/P1/P1/P1, Opp. Tax-1, Rajkot Antique Granito, Ghuntu,-Lakhdhirpur Road, Morbi (Gujarat)-363642 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacch5628Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

that with effect from assessment year 2013-14, section 68 of the Income Tax Act has been amended to provide that if a closely held company fails to explain the source of share capital, share premium or share application money received by it to the satisfaction of the assessing officer

PANKAJ JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1) OLD WARD-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1442/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1442/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Pankaj Jewellers Private The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Limited Ward-3(1)(1) V/S. 1199, Dedkani Pole [Old Ito, Ward-3(1)(2)] M.G. Haveli Road Ahmedabad 380 015 Manekchowk Ahmedabad 380 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aagcp 4590 D (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M. S. Chhajed, Ar Revenue By : Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri M. S. Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 68

account of unexplained cash deposits during the demonetisation period. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a closely held company, engaged in the business of trading in Bullion and Jewellery. The assessee filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 on 28.10.2017 Pankaj

ACIT, CIRCLE-52(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. SINGHANIA ALU FOIL CONTAINERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2743/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

section 68 (inserted by the Finance Act 2012, with effect from 1st April 2013), which provides that in cases where assessee is a closely held company, and any sum is found credited by way of share capital, share application money, share premium etc., the “source of source of such credits

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. MADINENI SITARAMAIAH, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed, and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 598/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

assessee during the subject year had received an unsecured loan of Rs. 2,99,49,991/- from M/s. Madineni Infra Private Limited, a closely held company in which he held 50% of the shareholding. The AO further noticed that the said company had accumulated profits ... ACIT-CIRCLE 5(1),HYD. VS. MADINENI SITARAMAIAH nature, source and tax implications. Accordingly, once the AO found that the lender was a closely held company, wherein the assessee was a substantial shareholder, and that accumulated profits were available with the assessee company, the applicability of section

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-01, NEW DELHI vs. SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORPORATION LTD. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5793/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1977/धिल्ली/2013(नि.व. 2009-10) Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India Sadan, 2A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadcs-6118-F बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R. No. 334, E-2, Ara, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi आअसं.4728, 2795, 4729, 4730 और 4731/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2010-11 से 2014-15)

Section 142