RAAJRATNA ENERGY HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

section (2) of\nsection 56 shall be the value, on the valuation date, of\nsuch unquoted equity shares, as shall be determined\nunder sub-clause (a), sub-clause (b), sub-clause (c) or\nsub-clause (e), at the option of the assessee, where the\nconsideration received by the assessee is from a resident\n; and under sub-clauses

RAAJRATNA ENERGY HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

Accordingly, this\nground is allowed for statistical purposes

section (2) of\nsection 56 shall be the value, on the valuation date, of\nsuch unquoted equity shares, as shall be determined\nunder sub-clause (a), sub-clause (b), sub-clause (c) or\nsub-clause (e), at the option of the assessee, where the\nconsideration received by the assessee is from a resident\n; and under sub-clauses

M/S VOLVO INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

56 ITR 42 , in absence of right to receive such income on account of SAD does not accrue in the relevant previous year. 24. The assessing officer, however, rejected the plea of the Assessee and held that (i) the assessee had right to receive the said income and had accounted the SAD refund as income in the books of accounts

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

depreciation which have been adopted for preparing such accounts including 37[statement of profit and loss] for such financial year or part of such financial year falling within the relevant previous year. Explanation. 1 ………………..” 2.4. From the above amended section, it can be seen that the provisions of sub clause 2(a) are not applicable to the Bank as decided

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

depreciation which have been adopted for preparing such accounts including 37[statement of profit and loss] for such financial year or part of such financial year falling within the relevant previous year. Explanation. 1 ………………..” 2.4. From the above amended section, it can be seen that the provisions of sub clause 2(a) are not applicable to the Bank as decided

WRITEMEN MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-7(1)(3), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act by the Finance Bill, 2024, the government has decided to sun-set the provisions w.e.f. AY 2025-26, considering that the government itself has decided to remove the provision, the addition be kindly deleted given the fact that the premium collected by the appellant is justified and as per the prescribed rules

M/S. MOBICOM TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(4) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2016-17

section 56 shall be the value, on the valuation date, of such unquoted equity shares as determined in the following manner under clause (a) or clause (b), at the option of the assessee, namely: - the fair market value of unquoted equity Page 4 1. Shares = (A-L) x (PV) (PE) where, A = book value of the assets in the balance

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and therefore, they are in the nature of intangible assets, eligible for depreciation at the prescribed rate, wherein it was held as under: “The law has specified items of intangible assets eligible for depreciation in the following categories : (i) know-how (ii) patents (iii) copyrights (iv) trademarks (v) licences (vi) franchises

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and therefore, they are in the nature of intangible assets, eligible for depreciation at the prescribed rate, wherein it was held as under: “The law has specified items of intangible assets eligible for depreciation in the following categories : (i) know-how (ii) patents (iii) copyrights (iv) trademarks (v) licences (vi) franchises

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and therefore, they are in the nature of intangible assets, eligible for depreciation at the prescribed rate, wherein it was held as under: “The law has specified items of intangible assets eligible for depreciation in the following categories : (i) know-how (ii) patents (iii) copyrights (iv) trademarks (v) licences (vi) franchises

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and therefore, they are in the nature of intangible assets, eligible for depreciation at the prescribed rate, wherein it was held as under: “The law has specified items of intangible assets eligible for depreciation in the following categories : (i) know-how (ii) patents (iii) copyrights (iv) trademarks (v) licences (vi) franchises

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and therefore, they are in the nature of intangible assets, eligible for depreciation at the prescribed rate, wherein it was held as under: “The law has specified items of intangible assets eligible for depreciation in the following categories : (i) know-how (ii) patents (iii) copyrights (iv) trademarks (v) licences (vi) franchises

M/S. UKN PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

section 56 of the Act, the fair market value of a property, other than immovable property, shall be determined in the following manner, namely,— Page 15 of 17 **** **** (c) valuation of shares and securities,— **** (b) the fair market value of unquoted equity shares shall be the value, on the valuation date, of such unquoted equity shares as determined

M/S SERENDIPITY INFOLABS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16

depreciation on software under section 35D. 8.2. In respect of addition made under section 56(2)(viiib) of the Act Ld.CIT

M/S. ABB LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 1997-98

depreciable component of the assets transferred. It can be considered for taxation either as capital gains or as business profits depending upon whether it is in capital field or revenue field. If it is not in any of the aforesaid fields, it can still be considered for taxation as a casual or non- recurring receipt u/s 56 read with section

M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.300/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17

section 55 of the Act, in relation to the meaning of 'cost of acquisition' etc. This amendment recognizes that depreciation on goodwill in relation to the years prior to April 1, 2021 may have been claimed and allowed and provides for a mechanism for the adjustment of such depreciation claimed and allowed, for determining the cost of acquisition

FIBRES & FABRICS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

56 (SC). He further submitted that w.e.f. 1.4.2002, the AO was duty bound to allow depreciation even without the claim from the appellant as per law. 13. On merits, the ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that the issue whether goodwill is eligible for depreciation is no longer res integra in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme

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

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

section 56 (2) (viib) are applicable and if the shares are issued at a price which is more than fair market value then the amount received in excess of fair market value of shares will be charged to tax in the hands of the company as income from other sources. The AO asked the assessee to substantiate the share premium