DIABETOMICS MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

section 56(2)(viib) to the venture\ncaptal undertaking receiving consideration from specified funds,\nthe said addition of Rs.46,24,57,170/-made by the Ld. AO is,\ntherefore, unwarranted and deserves to be deleted.\nSimilarly, as regards to the amount of disallowance

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

disallowance computed under section 14A of the Act pertains to computation of income under the normal provisions of the Act and cannot be read into the provisions of section 115JB of the Act pertaining to levy of minimum alternate tax and there is no express provision in clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act to that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(4), HYDERABAD vs. QUARK ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Ito, Ward-16(4) Vs. M/S.Quark Enterprises 1St Floor, ‘B’ Block Private Limited I.T.Towers, A.C.Guards 10Th Floor, Ramky Masab Tank Grandoise Hyderabad Ramky Towers Complex Road No.62, Gachibowli Hyderabad-500 032

section 56(2)(viib) and valuation report was prepared as per guidelines given by ICAI and no fault was found in same by the AO. As herd in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circie-2, Alwar. Vs. Safe Decore (P.) Ltd. 169 ITO 328 (Jaipur), Where the AO did not find any defect in valuation of shares

ASCENTECH ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

disallowance of the entire premium of Rs.45 lakhs while passing the impugned order.\nThe learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that it is well settled law as laid down by the Hon'ble High Courts as well as various Benches of this Tribunal the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to substitute the method of valuation as selected

SATCHISANANDA RAO MECHINENI,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

56(2)(viib) are not applicable in this case. 5. Apart from the solid evidences produced before your good offices, the fact that there are legal cases pending on the subject properties are also mentioned in the sale deeds. That shows that the title of the properties are not clear and the assessee did not get the full right over

SATCHIDANANDA RAO MECHINENI ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

56(2)(viib) are not applicable in this case. 5. Apart from the solid evidences produced before your good offices, the fact that there are legal cases pending on the subject properties are also mentioned in the sale deeds. That shows that the title of the properties are not clear and the assessee did not get the full right over

AAVISHKAR ORAL STRIPS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

56(2)(vii)(b), which is not a valid act\nand order.\n3. That the learned AO, has failed to appreciate the valuation method\nadopted by the appellant under DCF method and recalculated\nusing NAV method as per rule 11UA(1)(b), where appellant is free\nto adopt its own method and any acceptable method I,e DCF\nmethod

AUTOZILLA SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Years: 2016-17 Autozilla Solutions Pvt. Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ltd., Hyderabad. Ward – 1(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aanca 4025H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/01/2022

disallowed the share premium raised by the assessee u/s 56(2)(viib), while, the same was also added to the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. We are of the view that once the addition made under one section

PARK HEALTH SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT , CIRCLE 16(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G. Hon’Ble & Shri Narasimha Chary, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Park Health Systems Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Limited, Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaecp4353L (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Siva Kumar, Advocate. Revenue By: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing: 24.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.04.2024

section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) and disallowance of prior period

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. VARSITY EDUCATION MANAGEMENT PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 208/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Varsity Education Income Tax, Central Circle Management (P) Ltd 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aadcv6100E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate A.V. Raghuram राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B. Balakrishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20/09/2024 आदेश/Order

56(2)(viib) of the Act, then merely for the reason that the addition has been sustained by the Tribunal is not a reason for levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act,. This is because, penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings and the findings of the Assessing Officer in the assessement proceedings while making addition

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ALPHA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

disallow the cost, including premium, incurred in acquiring the shares for working out the capital gain/loss. Even after the insertion of section 56(2) (viib

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ALPHA VILLAS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

disallow the cost, including premium, incurred in acquiring the shares for working out the capital gain/loss. Even after the insertion of section 56(2) (viib