I.B. COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(1)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

56(2)(viib) of the I.T.Act and the amendment to section 68 of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2012, held

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

68 of the Act amounting to Rs.1,48,03,285/-. 2.6 In respect of disallowance made u/s 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

M/S.CORNERSSTONE PROPERTY INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

68 of the Act was retrospective in operation. The Tribunal specifically observed:- “We, therefore, hold that though amendment to section 56 (2) (viib

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

section 56(2)(viib) amounting to Rs.62,16,077/- 8.1. Aggrieved by additions, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) deleted disallowance of bad debts. Ld.CIT(A) on considering submissions by assessee directed Ld.AO to verify if assessee has actually suo moto disallowed sum of Rs.15,68

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) of the Act only in situations where the shares are issued at a premium and at a value higher than the fair market value. The fair market value contemplated in the provisions above is as under: - “(a) The fair market value of the shares shall be the value: (i) as may be determined in accordance

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

68 of the Act which was deleted. For that year, no action was taken to tax the above receipt u/s. 56(2)(viib) of the Act. The reading of the provision clearly shows that this provision will apply only if the consideration is received from a resident. Therefore, no such addition could have been made u/s. 56(2)(viib

M/S KOOCHIE PLAY SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

68 of the Act may kindly be deleted in the interest of equity and justice. Addition of Rs.8,15,390/- under Section 56(2) of the Act. [GROUND NO. 2] The Appellant had obtained two independent valuation reports in determining the share premium. The valuation is conducted at separate time and date. The learned assessing officer has added

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

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

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

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

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act and taxing the share premium of Rs.93,01,290/- under the said provisions. 10. The Learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the share capital along with the premium should be brought to tax u/s 68

M/S. FORTIGO NETWORK LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

68 of the Act. We had earlier noticed that the assessee had issued shares at a price higher than the price arrived in the valuation report. The excess amount aggregating to Rs.7,35,560/- was assessed by the AO u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act on protective basis. 4. The Ld CIT(A) confirmed the additions made

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

G S FARM TAAZA PRODUCE PRIVATE LIMITED.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (OSD), RANGE-3(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

56(2)(viib) of the Act read with Rule 11UA of Income Tax Rules, ultimately assigning a nil fair market value to the shares and disallowing the share premium of INR 3,04,42,500/- only treating as unexplained cash credit under section 68

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

68. The ld. AR submitted that while the AO did not principally contend against the position of the Appellant, that the goodwill recorded by it is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1) of the Act, the Appellant submits its contentions in support of its claim, on a conservative basis as follows:- i. The said goodwill

M/S EDULINK PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1)(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2015-16

56(2)(viib) applies only to issue of shares. Since the assessee has received only share application money, those provisions are not attracted; (ii) the aforesaid provisions are applicable only when shares are issued for a consideration which exceeds face value in such shares. Since there was no premium charged by the Page 5 of 9 assessee, there

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.

68 of the Act but the disallowance is made by applying provisions of section 56(2)(viib) which cannot

NORTH FACING REAL TECH PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

section 56(2)(viib).” 9. Further, the assessee has submitted partial details on 20/04/2021. Accordingly, in the opinion of the AO, the assessee did not discharge the onus u/s 68