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

disallowance under Section 14A, addition under Section 56(2)(viib) for share premium, and disallowance of short-term capital loss

DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA vs. GTR ALUMINIUM PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2015-16

section 56(2)(viib) amounting to Rs.33,71,77,500 pertaining to share premium collected when assessee had been incurring huge loss and there was no justification provided for fixing such high share value and ignoring findings recorded in assessment order that common director of the assess-company and investor-company namely, M/s UKN Properties Ltd had given a statement

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 56(2)(viib) of the\nAct for the Assessment Year 2017-18. Further for the Assessment Year 2018-\n19, AO has disallowed

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. FINWIZARD TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD., ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Sri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2016-17

56(2)(viib) of the Act, regarding share premium received from residents, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance by observing that the share valuation certificate was not reliable and the ld. AO was correct in invoking the provisions of section

MIM COMPONENTS BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

section 56(2)(viib) of the act, the Ld.AR submitted that two methods provided to determine the value of unquoted equity shares being discounted cash flow method and face market value, of which the assessee opted for discounted cash Flow method. He submitted that the assessee estimated its turnover and provided till 2020 based on its project salability

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

disallowance of amortisation of intangible assets under section 35D amounting to Rs.59,46,000/- • revaluation of share premium under section 56(2)(viib

M/S SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT LTFD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

The Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 56(2)(viib) does not apply on shares of the non-resident. Accordingly, we allow ground no. 3 and direct the Ld. Assessing Officer to delete the addition u/s. 56(2)(viib) of the Act of Rs. 198 crores. 30. Ground no. 4 is the adhoc disallowance

M/S. WATERLINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Waterline Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 10Th Floor, Gamma Block, Of Income Tax, Sigma Soft Tech Park No.07, Circle 7(1)(2), Airport Varthur Road, Bangalore. Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aaacw 8059N Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Pranav Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals)-7, Bengaluru Dated 27.3.2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised 18 Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Page 2 Of 20

section 56(2)(viib) and made an addition of Rs.33,71,77,500. The AO also made a disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act towards

M/S KOTTARAM AGRO FOODS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2014-15

disallowance of R&D expenditure. In assessment year 2015-16, the assessee is challenging the addition made u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 3. The facts relating to the case are stated in brief. The assessee company is running an agro based industry. In the year relevant to the year 2014-15, the assessee had issued 50,000 shares

M/S KOTTARAM AGRO FOODS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2014-15

disallowance of R&D expenditure. In assessment year 2015-16, the assessee is challenging the addition made u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 3. The facts relating to the case are stated in brief. The assessee company is running an agro based industry. In the year relevant to the year 2014-15, the assessee had issued 50,000 shares

M/S. UDAYANT MALHOUTRA & COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,BEGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

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

disallowance made by Ld.AO under section 56 (2) (viib) of the Act. He submitted that, Ld.AO failed to observe that

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

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

section 68 and he has made addition u/s 56(2) (viib) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 12. Regarding ground No.4, it was submitted by learned AR of the assessee that in the present year, there is no exempt income earned by the assessee and in this regard, our attention was drawn to note No.21 attached with the P & L Account

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

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

section 68 and he has made addition u/s 56(2) (viib) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 12. Regarding ground No.4, it was submitted by learned AR of the assessee that in the present year, there is no exempt income earned by the assessee and in this regard, our attention was drawn to note No.21 attached with the P & L Account

M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

56(2) (viib) of the Act. Thus such capital account transaction not falling within a statutory exception cannot be brought to tax as already discussed herein above while considering the challenge to the grounds as mentioned in the impugned order. 39. In tax jurisprudence, it is well settled that following four factors are essential ingredients to a taxing statute

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

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

section 56(2)(viib) the method adopted should be net asset value for determining the fair market value rather than discounted cash flow method which is as per Rule 11UA(1)(c)(b) of Income tax Rules. Page 4 of 12 5. Ld.AO thus computed value of share premium at Rs.51.32 per share and disallowed

M/S MAJJU IMAGE & BRAND CONSULTANTS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Majju Image & Brand Consultants Pvt. Ltd., The Pr. No. G1, Accolade Commissioner Of Apartments, Income Tax, Millers Road, 2Nd Cross, Bangalore – 4, Benson Town, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 046. Pan: Aaicm6586E Appellant Respondent : Shri B.S. Balachandran, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order U/S. 263 Dated 25/01/2018 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit, Bangalore – 4 For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Revisionary Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Pcit) U/S.263 Dated; 25-01-2018 Is Opposed To The Facts Of The Case & The Law & Therefore, It Is Liable To Be Set-Aside.

section 56(2)(viib) for making disallowance of the difference being the excess fair market value by computing as under

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

disallow depreciation on Goodwill. Further, reliance in this regard is placed on the IT(TP)A No.300/Bang/2021 Page 38 of 44 decision of the same bench in the case M/s Krishna Drugs Ltd., ITA No.198/Hyd/2011. 72. Further, he submitted that the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of Urmin Marketing Pvt. Ltd., 122 taxmann.com 40 rejected invocation