GATEWAY OFFICE PARKS PRIOVATE LIMITEDI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CICLE-6(1), CHENNAI

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

56(2)(viib) are not applicable in the\npresent case and hence set aside the order of lower authorities.\nAccordingly we direct the Ld. AO to delete the addition of\nRs.11,67,14,298/-. The ground of appeal No.2 raised by the\nassessee is therefore allowed.\n5.0\nThe next issue raised by the assessee through ground no.3 is\nregarding

ADP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

disallowance of expenses under Section 40(a)(i) due to discrepancies in foreign payment tax. \n", "held": "The Tribunal held that goodwill arising from amalgamation is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation, and the 5th proviso to Section 32(1) does not restrict this claim. The addition made under Section 56(2)(viib

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

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

56(2)(viib) of the Act amounting to Rs.27,53,76,209/-. On further appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. 3. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the assessee has issued the shares at premium to another NBFC and both are regulated entities. The Ld. AR further submitted that the entire transaction of rights issues

ADP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.: 2670, 2671, 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Adp India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Thamarai Tech Park, 6Th Floor, Vs. Income Tax, Sp Plot No. 16 To 20 & 20A, Thiru Vi Ka Corporate Circle 1(1), Industrial Estate, Inner Ring Road, Chennai. Guindy Industrial Estate So, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aadcm-5547-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin, Cit & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: These Four Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Four Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (All Dated 21.08.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. Ita Nos.2670 To 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024

disallowed the difference of share premium of ₹.123.42 [₹.193 – ₹.69.58] per share under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act in respect

ADP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.: 2670, 2671, 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Adp India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Thamarai Tech Park, 6Th Floor, Vs. Income Tax, Sp Plot No. 16 To 20 & 20A, Thiru Vi Ka Corporate Circle 1(1), Industrial Estate, Inner Ring Road, Chennai. Guindy Industrial Estate So, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aadcm-5547-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin, Cit & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: These Four Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Four Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (All Dated 21.08.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. Ita Nos.2670 To 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024

disallowed the difference of share premium of ₹.123.42 [₹.193 – ₹.69.58] per share under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act in respect

M/S. BRIO BLISS LIFE SCIENCES PVT. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 1 (2),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3067/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act does not apply. Therefore, no addition can be made towards excess consideration over and above the face value u/s. 56(2)(viib) of the Act. The assessee, further contended that the AO is erred in determining share price under NAV method even though, the assessee has followed DCF method for determining share price

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. R K M POWERGEN PRIVATE LIMITED, T NAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the

viib) till then.\n7.5.22 With reference to differential rate of allotment of shares to the domestic investor (RK Powergen Pvt. Ltd) and the foreign investors, the issue is dealt u/ s 56(2)(viia) in terms of provisions of Rule 11 UA(I)(c)(b) separately and it would be discussed in the order in the case of RK Powergen

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. R K M POWERGEN PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the\n

viib)\ntill then.\n7.5.22 With reference to differential rate of allotment of\nshares to the domestic investor (RK Powergen Pvt. Ltd)\nand the foreign investors, the issue is dealt u/ s 56(2)(viia)\nin terms of provisions of Rule 11 UA(I)(c)(b) separately and\nit would be discussed in the order in the case of RK\nPowergen

ADP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

disallowance of depreciation was set aside.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "250", "143(1)", "143(2)", "142(1)", "32", "43(1)", "47", "170", "40(a)(i)", "195", "56(2)(viib

ORAGADAM CITY DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-5(1), CHENNAI

In the result, Addition u/s

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

56(2)(viib) is sustainable in law? (ii) Whether disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) and section 43B is justified? 3. Addition

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI vs. VENTURE LIGHTING INDIA LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

disallowance. Therefore, this issue of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 5. The second issue in this appeal of Revenue is as regard to the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition made by AO on the basis of taking fair market value of buy back of shares by assessee from its holding company M/s. Advance Lighting Technology Inc, a company

M/S SHRIRAM PROPERTIES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-CENTRAL1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 431/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A relatable to exempt income and difference in brought

LIFECELL INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3334/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Lifecell International Assistant Commissioner Of Private Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 26, Vandalur Corporate Circle 4(1), Kelambakkam Main Road, Chennai. Keelakkottaiyur, Chennai. [Pan: Aaeca-7997-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Ajith Kumar Choradia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

disallowed under Section 35(1)(iv) of the Act d. Pass such other orders it may deem fit.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the appellant M/s. Life Cell International Private Ltd is engaged in the business of processing, preservation and storage of stem cells obtained from umbilical cord, menstrual blood. The appellant company had filed

M/S.THIRUVALLUVAR TEXTILES PVT. LTD.,RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for A

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

56(2)(viib)(Rs.) 1 2013-14 4,91,89,563 - 2 2014-15 13,76,59,938 31,04,80,000 3 2016-17 5,09,00,686 - 4 2017-18 3,53,70,007 - 9. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us for all the four (supra) assessment years

M/S. THIRUVALLUVAR TEXTILES PVT. LTD.,RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for A

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

56(2)(viib)(Rs.) 1 2013-14 4,91,89,563 - 2 2014-15 13,76,59,938 31,04,80,000 3 2016-17 5,09,00,686 - 4 2017-18 3,53,70,007 - 9. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us for all the four (supra) assessment years

M/S. THIRUVALLUVAR TEXTILES PVT. LTD.,RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for A

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

56(2)(viib)(Rs.) 1 2013-14 4,91,89,563 - 2 2014-15 13,76,59,938 31,04,80,000 3 2016-17 5,09,00,686 - 4 2017-18 3,53,70,007 - 9. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us for all the four (supra) assessment years

M/S. THIRUVALLUVAR TEXTILES PVT. LTD.,RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for A

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

56(2)(viib)(Rs.) 1 2013-14 4,91,89,563 - 2 2014-15 13,76,59,938 31,04,80,000 3 2016-17 5,09,00,686 - 4 2017-18 3,53,70,007 - 9. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us for all the four (supra) assessment years

MYNAH INDUSTRIES LTD.,HOSUR vs. ITO TDS WARD, SALME

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in I

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2433, 2434, 2435, 2436 & 2437/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2014-15, 2012-13 & 2011-12 M/S Mynah Industries Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, No.66, Mugalapalli Village, V. Tds Ward, Salem. Hosur – 635 105. The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pan : Aabcr 5484 M Circle(1), Hosur. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

56(2)(viib) of the Act towards share premium. 8. Shri V.M. Mahidar, the Ld. D.R., submitted that the assessee has received large amount of share premium to the extent of ₹45,61,32,384/-. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee has received share premium in excess of fair market value. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., the excess