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

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

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

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

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)(viib). Accordingly, notice under section 263 was issued with assessee as under: 'From the case records, it is evident that M/s Mukand Limited and M/s Sumitomo Corporation. Japan, have formed a joint venture for the manufacture of bright bars and wires in India Mukund Ltd and Sumitomo. Japan will carry out the business 3 through the assessee company

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

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)(PE)| x (PV) where,A=book value

VODAFONE M-PESA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME CIRCLE 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed"

Bench: Shri S. Rifaor Rahman, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1073/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

viib) of subsection (2') of section 56 shall be the value, on the valuation date, of such unquoted equity shares as determined in the following manner under clAOse (a) or clAOse (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

PRL DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI CITY vs. CIRCLE 8(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ground V of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

depreciation, sale promotion expenses amounting to Rs.94,98,268/- and addition of share premium under section 56(2)(viib) of the 5 PRL Developers

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

56(2)(viib) of the Act and included within the definition of income in Section 2(24) of the Act.” 6.4.3 The learned A.R. for the assessee argued that it was to be noted that the nature of potential income arising out of an international transaction was clarified to mean a potential impact of income arising out of the international

DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAX HOSPITALS AND ALLIED SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, the AO treated the premium of Rs. 10/- as assessee’s income for the year under consideration and made addition of Rs. 10,73,82,810/- in AY 2016-17. 7.1. Proceeding further, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed depreciation

DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAX HOSPITALS AND ALLIED SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, the AO treated the premium of Rs. 10/- as assessee’s income for the year under consideration and made addition of Rs. 10,73,82,810/- in AY 2016-17. 7.1. Proceeding further, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed depreciation

DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAX HOSPITALS AND ALLIED SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, the AO treated the premium of Rs. 10/- as assessee’s income for the year under consideration and made addition of Rs. 10,73,82,810/- in AY 2016-17. 7.1. Proceeding further, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed depreciation

KEVA FRGRANCES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 4 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act are not applicable to the assessee for the reason that assessee company is a subsidiary company of holding company which is listed and therefore the assessee also becomes a company in which public are substantially interested. In view of these facts, we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) has correctly allowed

MADHURIMA INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

56(2)(viib) of the IT Act. 4.8. Respectfully following the decisions discussed above, I hold that the action of the AO, after following the direction of the PCIT given u/s. 263 is justified and the addition made by the AO in the assessment order is held to be correct. 5. The appeal of the assessee is, therefore, dismissed

CROWN CHEMICALS PVT LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT 15 (1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act has to be done or adopted at the assessee’s option and that does not open to the ld. AO to change the method of valuation which the assessee has opted. These arguments were reiterated by the ld. AR before us. Per contra, the ld. DR submitted that the ld. AO has every

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

56(2) (viib) and the same is enumerated as income in section 2(24) (xvi). However, what is brought into the ambit of income is the premium received from a resident in excess of the fair market value of the shares. In this case what is being sought to be taxed in capital not received from a non-resident

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

56(2) (viib) and the same is enumerated as income in section 2(24) (xvi). However, what is brought into the ambit of income is the premium received from a resident in excess of the fair market value of the shares. In this case what is being sought to be taxed in capital not received from a non-resident

DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI vs. HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

56(2) (viib) and the same is enumerated as income in section 2(24) (xvi). However, what is brought into the ambit of income is the premium received from a resident in excess of the fair market value of the shares. In this case what is being sought to be taxed in capital not received from a non-resident