BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

14 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 56(2)(viib)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai97Delhi54Chandigarh52Kolkata22Bangalore14Jaipur13Hyderabad11Chennai10Indore8Nagpur6Pune6Ahmedabad5Cuttack3Jodhpur2Visakhapatnam2Cochin1Amritsar1Allahabad1Raipur1SC1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 56(2)(viib)22Addition to Income11Section 92C9Section 143(3)8Section 14A8Section 684Disallowance4Section 143(2)3Section 563Transfer Pricing

M/S. GMR ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2310/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am It(Tp)A No.2310/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2015-2016 M/S.Gmr Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. The Dy.Commissioner Of (Successor To Gmr Holdings P.Ltd) Income-Tax, Central Circle 2(2) V. Bangalore. No.25/1 Skip House, Museum Rd. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan : Aaccr1554R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Yogesh Thar, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2021 Date Of Hearing : 25.10.2021 O R D E R Per Bench:- This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 14.10.20199 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2015-2016. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Five Grounds & Various Sub Grounds. The Assessee By Its Application Dated 13.07.2020 Has Also Raised An Additional Ground. The Learned Ar During The Course Of Hearing Submitted That Grounds No.Ii & Iii May Be Adjudicated & The Other Grounds May Be Left Open. Therefore, Grounds No.Ii & Iii Are Reproduced Below:-

For Appellant: Sri.Yogesh Thar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 56(2)(viib)
3
Natural Justice3
Section 92A(2)2

price which it would have fetched if sold in the open market. He observed that the valuation of any property is based on the fact as to what value the property would fetch if sold in the open market. Further if AO is not satisfied with working of the assessee, he ought to have computed the FMV himself

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

ITA 494/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand KhinchaFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

viib) of sub-section (2) of 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

M/S. PISCES ESERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 310/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Years : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri KR Pradeep & Ms. Girija G.P, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Vilas Shinde, CIT (DR)
Section 56(2)(viib)

section 56(2)(viib) read with income tax rule 11UA of Income Tax Rule. The AO cannot interfere in the method selected for the valuation of the shares. However, the AO can scrutinize the contents or working of the method adopted by the assessee so as to find out the fair valuation. In case, the AO is not satisfied with

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

ITA 261/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 92C

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 made by the Ld. Assessing Officer on cost of vehicles, repairs expenditure

M/S UB SPORTS MANAGEMENT OVERSEAS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 2930/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. Manasa Ananthan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malthora, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92A(2)Section 92C

transfer of control. Therefore, the price determined by the TPO is upheld for the above reasons and the grounds No. 5 to 10 raised by the Assessee are accordingly dismissed. M/s. Palmer Investment Group Ltd. 26. Ground Nos. 11 to 14 deal with aspect of the method and computation mechanism adopted by the learned TPO. As mentioned above

M/S PALMER INVESTMENT GROUP LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 2929/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. Manasa Ananthan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malthora, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92A(2)Section 92C

transfer of control. Therefore, the price determined by the TPO is upheld for the above reasons and the grounds No. 5 to 10 raised by the Assessee are accordingly dismissed. M/s. Palmer Investment Group Ltd. 26. Ground Nos. 11 to 14 deal with aspect of the method and computation mechanism adopted by the learned TPO. As mentioned above

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

ITA 1278/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri B. M. Tambakar, C. AFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Sidappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

viib) of sub-section (2) of 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:— (a) the fair market value of unquoted equity shares = (A-L) X (PV), (PE) where, A = book value

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

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

ITA 1364/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT-II (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 928Section 92C

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. 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

ITA 300/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Sheshadri & Ms. Amulya K., CAsFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

transfer and hence, applying said proviso, it was concluded that no depreciation shall be allowed in the hands of UB, since the transferor did not claim any depreciation thereon. It was therefore concluded that the amalgamated company cannot claim such depreciation that was never claimed by the amalgamating company. 76. The above basis formed the twin grounds on which

VALENCIA NUTRITION LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VALENCIA NUTRITION PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 474/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K.And Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Sudheendra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, D.R
Section 56(2)(viib)

price of maximum of Rs.65/- per share. However, the assessee has collected share premium of Rs.622/- per share. Accordingly, the A.O. took the view that the share premium collected in excess of Rs.65/- I.e. Rs.557/- per share is excess share premium and the same is assessable u/s 56(2)(viib) of the ITA No.473&474/Bang/2020 M/s. Valencia Nutrition Limited, Bangalore

VALENCIA NUTRITION LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VALENCIA NUTRITION PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 473/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K.And Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Sudheendra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, D.R
Section 56(2)(viib)

price of maximum of Rs.65/- per share. However, the assessee has collected share premium of Rs.622/- per share. Accordingly, the A.O. took the view that the share premium collected in excess of Rs.65/- I.e. Rs.557/- per share is excess share premium and the same is assessable u/s 56(2)(viib) of the ITA No.473&474/Bang/2020 M/s. Valencia Nutrition Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 2174/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sri G.S. Prashanth, A.RFor Respondent: Sri M.K. Biju, D.R
Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

price higher than that determined in the valuation report, the Ld A.R submitted that the value of share was determined at Rs.3118.77 per share by M/s Venkatesh, Baskar & Associates. However, the assessee has obtained another valuation report from M/s S C Prashanth & Co, wherein the share premium was determined at Rs.3,148.39 per share. The assessee has furnished a copy

M/S I-EXCEED TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1181/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accoutant Member Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, D.R
Section 56(2)(viib)

price at which the shares were issued. The A.O. noticed that the C.A. has adopted discounted cash flow method (DCF Method) for valuation of shares. In the valuation report, the accountant had arrived at the value per share at Rs.87.56 per share. However, the assessee has issued shares @ Rs.90/- per share including share premium of Rs.80/- per share. Accordingly

M/S. INNACCEL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 146/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Siddana Biradar, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. R.Premi, D.R
Section 56(2)(viib)

price of Rs.2,100.10/- per share to resident investors. The assessee thus collected share premium of Rs.4.24 crores. The assessee furnished a valuation report in support of the share premium amount collected by it, wherein shares had been valued under discounted cash flow method (DCF method). 3. The A.O. was of the view that the shares of the company have