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

2)(viib) had no application on share premia received from non-residents and Section 68 could not be used for the reasons stated above. It is for this reason that the Assessing Officer invoked Section 56

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

2)(viib) had no application on share premia received from\nnon-residents and Section 68 could not be used for the reasons\nstated above. It is for this reason that the Assessing Officer\ninvoked Section 56

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

56(2)(viib) of the Act and :-10-: ITA. No: 431/Chny/2022 all other connected issues relating to the above issues. The relevant findings of the PCIT are as under: 10. I have considered the written submissions filed along with certain details enclosed. The arguments and pleas raised during the hearing were also Considered. I have also perused the assessment record

ITO CORPORATE WARD 4(3), CHENNAI vs. KAINO INFRA DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1491/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) The Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S. Kaino Infra Development Corporate Ward-4(3) Pvt Ltd., Chennai-34. 37, Ttk Road, Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018. Pan: Aadcr 5655E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit For Mr. V.Vikekananthan, Cit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. G.Seetharaman, C.A. & Mr.S.Sundararaman, C.A सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Chennai Dated 31.01.2019 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A) Is Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Allowing The Assessee'S Appeal By Stating That The Assessee Company Has Sufficiently & Reasonably Justified The Share Premium Received Of Rs.168.60 Crores For The Year.

section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the I.T. Act. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that M/s.Grande LLP has a net asset value of Rs.168.31 Crores as on 31.03.2014 and the net asset value of M/s.Grande LLP would assume the character of intrinsic value of shares of Assessee Company. 3.1 The Ld CIT failed to the appreciate

RSJ PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 5(3), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

68,454/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.29,62,560/- under section 56(2)(viib

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN HEALTH FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2237/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Southern Health Foods Private Income Tax, Limited, Khivraj Complex-1, Corporate Circle 3(1), Third Floor No. 477- 480, Chennai Nandanam, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 035. [Pan:Aarcs3296E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Easwar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Srikanth, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 11 Days. The Appellant - Revenue Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said

68 of the Act, para 12 of the assessment order clearly shows the same. The assessee filed additional documentary evidence dated 11.01.2021 before the ld. CIT(A) in support of its claim. The relevant part is extracted in the impugned order at para 7.1.1 of the impugned order. On perusal of the same we note that it was explained that

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

viib) of the Act, but confirmed addition made towards storage fees received in advance and partly allowed relief towards addition u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act. 4. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground no. 5 to 19 of assessee’s appeal is addition towards storage fee received in advance amounting to Rs. 89,56

S4 CARLISLE PUBLISHING SERVICE P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

56(2) clause (viib) only with effect from 1.4.2013. The Ld CIT(A) held that although a specific provision was introduced to assess the receipt of share premium disproportionate to the net asset value w.e.f. 1.4.2013, it cannot be said that prior to that amendment, there was no legislative intention u/s 68 to assess such receipt without any basis. Although

ROBUST HOTELS P LTD. ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2296 & 2298/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2014-15

68 of the Act in respect of the premium received by the assessee for allotment of Optionally Convertible Preferential Shares. The assessee claims that genuineness of transaction was established and identity of the company which invested in the share 5 I.T.A. Nos.2296 & 2298/Mds/17 of the assessee-company was also established. The creditworthiness of the company was also established. Therefore, there

ROBUST HOTELS P LTD. ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2296 & 2298/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2014-15

68 of the Act in respect of the premium received by the assessee for allotment of Optionally Convertible Preferential Shares. The assessee claims that genuineness of transaction was established and identity of the company which invested in the share 5 I.T.A. Nos.2296 & 2298/Mds/17 of the assessee-company was also established. The creditworthiness of the company was also established. Therefore, there