RADIANT LIFE CARE MUMBAI P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 Radiant Life Care Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., Principle Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor Man Excellenza, S.V. Income Tax Mumbai-3, Road, Vile Parle (W), Vs. R. No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400056. Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aagcr 9198 D Appellant Respondent

depreciation after making proper & specific enquiry with reference to Section 56(2) (viib) for valuation of shares and Section 32 for depreciation

DY CIT. CIRCLE-1, THANE vs. M/S TRAVECOM GLOBAL P. LTD., BHAYANDER

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Circle 1 V. M/S. Travecom Global Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 22, B-Wing B/607, Krishnakunj 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park Salasar Brij Bhoomi Wagle Industrial Estate Bhayander (W)-401101 Thane (W)-400604 Pan: Aaect8729Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji Department By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

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, = book value of the assets in the balance-sheet as reduced

SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

56,708/- being expenses incurred on flats/buildings sold in earlier AY. On further appeal the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and deleted the disallowance of expenses. Both the assessee and the revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). Disallowance under section

TOPSGRUP ELECTRONICS SYSTEMS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 8(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amit Shuklam/S. Topsgrup Electronic Systems Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3) Ltd. (Previsously Tops Sequipment Ltd.) Àayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 5, Royal Palms Golf & Country Club Vs. Mumbai 400020 Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (E) Mumbai 400065 Pan - Aaact3291K Appellant Respondent

depreciation etc. It is that income which is to be adjusted to the ALP price. It is only a tax on capital receipts. This aspect appears to have been completed lost sight of the impugned order. 42. It was contended by the Revenue that in any event the charge would be found in Section 56

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, THANE, THANE vs. NAKUL MARKHEDKAR, THANE

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 56 of the Act, the fair market value of a property, other than immovable property, shall be determined in the following manner, namely,— (a) & (b) ****** (c) valuation of shares and securities,— (a) ***** [(b) the fair market value of unquoted equity shares shall be the value, on the valuation date, of such unquoted equity shares as determined in the following

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, THANE, THANE vs. NAKUL MARKHEDKAR, THANE

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 56 of the Act, the fair market value of a property, other than immovable property, shall be determined in the following manner, namely,— (a) & (b) ****** (c) valuation of shares and securities,— (a) ***** [(b) the fair market value of unquoted equity shares shall be the value, on the valuation date, of such unquoted equity shares as determined in the following

TATVA GLOABAL ENVIRONMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(3)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumartatva Global Environment Ltd Vs Ito-9(3)(3), (Now Known As Tatva Global Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Environment Pvt Ltd) Mumbai Uniphos House, C D Marg, Opp Madhu Park, Khar (W) Mumbai 400 052 Pan : Aaics1718A Appellant Respondednt Dcit, Cent.Cir.6(3), Vs Tatva Global Environment Ltd Mumbai (Now Known As Tatva Global Environment Pvt Ltd) Uniphos House, C D Marg, Opp Madhu Park, Khar (W) Mumbai 400 052 Pan : Aaics1718A Appellant Respondednt

section 56(2)(viia) as per rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules in respect of investment in shares of Enviro Technology Limited. The appellant hereby reserves the right to add to, alter or amplify the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at, the time of appeal, so as to enable the Honorable Tribunal to decide

ACIT 421 MUMBAI, MUMBAI CITY vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

56,708/- being expenses incurred on flats/buildings sold in\nearlier AY. On further appeal the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance made under\nsection 40(a)(ia) of the Act and deleted the disallowance of expenses. Both the\nassessee and the revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the\nCIT(A).\nDisallowance under section

COASTAL GUJARAT POWER LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No 2298/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Coastal Gujarat Power Limited, The Income Tax Officer 34, Sant Tukaram Road, 6(2)(1), फनाभ/ Carnac Bunder, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400009 M K Road, Mumbai-400020 अऩीराथी की ओय से / Applicant By : Shri Farrokh V Irani प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri M C Omi Ningshen सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of : 15.3.2017 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee & Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), Mumbai, Dated25.2.2015 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The First Ground Raised By The Assessee Is Against Upholding The Order Of Assessing Officer As Regards Interest Income From Securities Deposited With Paschim Gujarat Vij Co.Ltd (Hereinafter Referred To As Pgvcl) For Availing Electricity For The Purposes Of Construction Of Power

56 of the Act. This Court also emphasised the fact that the company was not bound to utilise the interest so earned to adjust it against the interest paid on borrowed capital. The company was free to use this income in any manner it liked. However, while interest earned by investing borrowed capital in short-term deposits is an independent

ITO -3(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S V.K. LALACO PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Income Tax Officer -3(3)(4) V. M/S. V.K. Lalco Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 672, 6Th Floor 1017/18, Dalamal Tower Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 10Th Floor, 211, Nariman Point Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400020 Pan: Aaacv9820A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Satish Modi Department By : Shri S.N. Kabra

depreciation of ₹.8,49,236/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) were issued and served on the assessee. In response Ld. AR of the assessee attended and filed the relevant information as called for. 4. The assessee company is in the business

INDORAMA VENTURES OXIDES ANKLESHWAR PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

section 56(2)(x) of the IT Act.\n44 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/Ld.\nDRP erred in not following the mandatory and binding procedure set out in\ninstruction No. 3 of 2016 dated 10 March 2016 issued by the Central Board of\nDirect Taxes, Ministry of Finance, Government

MUKUND SUMI METAL PROCESSING LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

56(2)(uiib) are not applicable. 4 Other observations made in the notice issued under section 263: 4.1 Further to the above submissions, Mukund Surni objects to certain observations made in the notice dated 5 February 2018 issued under section 263, which are discussed below: Para No. in Observations made in the notice Remarks the notice 2 The assessee company

MAX HOSPITALS AND ALLIED SERVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MUMBAI -3, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2018-19 Max Hospitals & Principal Allied Services Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor, Income Tax Mumbai- 3 Man Excellenza, Room No.612, Vs. S. V. Road, 6Th Floor, Vile Parle (W.), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400056 Maharishi Karve Road, Pan: Aagcr9198D Mumbai- 400020. Appellant : Respondent

depreciation and Large share premiu received during the year (verify applicability of Sec 56(2) (viib) or an y other relevant section

ACIT CENT .CIR6(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. KENNETH BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhthe Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Kenneth Builders & Of Income Tax, Cc-6(4) Developers Limited Room No. 1925, 19Th 15Th Floor, Tower – 1, Floor, Air India Building, Indiabulls Finance Center Nariman Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai- 400021 Elphistone, Mumbai - 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacck8268P Appellant .. Respondent

depreciable assets could not be brought to tax against the assesse under the second proviso to section 10(2)(vii). Accordingly, the High Court was justified in accepting the assessee’s claim...." In the case Chheda Housing Development Corpn. v. Addl. CIT, 32(1), Mumbai [2019] 110 taxmann.com 56

IDEAFORGE TECHNOLOGY LTD,MAHAPE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 15(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 867/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ideaforge Technology V/S. Assistant Commissioner Ltd. बिधम Of Income Tax, Circle El-146, Ttc Industrial 15(2)(1), Mumbai Area, Electronic Zone, Room No. 357, 3Rd Floor, Midc, Mahape, Navi Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Mumbai Karve Road, Mumbai 400020 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabci6495B Appellant/अपीलधथी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्धाररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi Shri. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (Sr Dr) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date Of Hearing 22.08.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 11.12.2024, Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “On The Facts & In Law, 1. The Hon. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Id Ao In Making Addition Of Rs. 6,60,02,100/- By Relying Upon The Provisions Of Section 56(2)(Viib) Of The It Act, 1961 On The Ground That The Consideration Received By The Appellant For Issue Of P A G E | 2

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)(PE)| x (PV) where,A=book value of the assets in the balance-sheet

DOW CHEMICAL INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,THANE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

depreciation of INR 5,56,53,581 on\ncustomer relations.\n5.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A)\nerred in upholding the contention of the Assessing Officer that the Appellant\nhas not incurred any cost for acquiring customer relations in the scheme of\nmerger.\n6. Upholding the adjustments made under section

DOW CHEMICALS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA-14(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

depreciation of INR 5,56,53,581 on\ncustomer relations.\n5.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A)\nerred in upholding the contention of the Assessing Officer that the Appellant\nhas not incurred any cost for acquiring customer relations in the scheme of\nmerger.\n6. Upholding the adjustments made under section

ACIT 24(3), MUMBAI vs. RAKESH KUMAR GARODIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm Acit 24(3), Shri Rakesh Kumar Garodia, Room No.413,7Th Floor, Vs. ¾ Govind Nagar, Pawan Baug Road, Bkc, Bandra (E), Malad (West), Mumbai-400061. Mumbai-400051. Pan/Gir No.: Aaapg8736D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

56(2)(v) of the Act, the gift received from the person mention therein is exempt. The HUF is not mentioned in the list of relative, and treated the gift as “Income from Other Sources”. However, the CIT(A) while dealing with the grounds of validity of re- opening observed that during the assessment, the details along with gift-deed