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 (s) Issue Ground of Appeal of IT/Act 56(2)(viib) Disallowance of 1. The Assessing Officer has erred in making

DCIT 6 (3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KILITCH HEALTHCARE INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross objection is held to be infructuous

viib), disallowance of depreciation on goodwill of Rs.2,49,51,468, disallowance of Rs.40,03,820 u/s. 14A and addition of Rs.41,94,79,280 u/s. 56(2)(viia) of the Act. 4. Apropos issue of addition under section

M/S.IMPACT RETAILTECH FUND PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 6(2)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp& Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2050/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

disallowed and resultant income has been further reduced by "Provision for investment done earlier year no longer required written off' to arrive at Business income of Rs. NIL, claiming it was added back in A.Y. 2011-12. While computing tax payable u/s 115JB, the provision as mentioned above has been reduced from the Book profit as well claiming that such

AVINASH S SADAMATE ACIT CIRCLE 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. RUCHI RENEWABLE ENERGY PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S.(Physical Hearing) Acit Circle – 3(3)(1), Mumbai Ruchi Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd.706, Room No. 522, Aayakarbhavan, Vs Tulsiani Chambers, Free Press Journal M K Road, Churchgate, Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai – 400021. [Pan: Aaecr1591A] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

Section 56(2)(viib), he went ahead by disallowing the excess of the premium received by assessee by invoking the provisions

NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

disallowance of direct expenses as provided under Rule 8D(2)(i) and the interest expenses under Rule 8D(2)(ii). The dispute is with regard to administrative expenses only as prescribed under Rule 8D(2)(iii). We have noted that the assessee has claimed investment in its group companies for strategic purpose on which no other expenses or administrative expenses

CABLE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjeet Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

viib) was inserted w.e.f. 1 April 2013 to tax the excess of consideration over the fair value where the receipt of consideration for issue of shares by a private company exceeds the face value of shares issued subject to certain exclusions. sub section 2 clause (x) was inserted w.e.f. 1 April 2017 to tax the receipt of money

JOSEPH MUDALIAR,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4 (3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman ()

56(2)(viib), ignoring the fact that property was booked under construction in OCT2013 when the property market price was lower. 2. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in disallowing Rs. 150000/ being development charges paid to builders for 4 flats & bank interest of Rs.173308/- paid during construction period while calculating long term capital gain, ignoring the fact that these

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

56(2) (viib) more so when the said explanation is very clear and the choice lies with the assessee to follow either of the method. Grounds of Appeal No. 2&3 As regarding ground 2 and ground 3 being the addition restricted by the Ld.CIT(A) under section 14A of the Act to Rs 3,000/- being the amount

TUTOR INVESTMENT& FINANCE PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

Bench: the ITAT, Mumbai Bench “E”, which, vide its order in ITA No. 6752/Mum/2017 dated 15.06.2018, upheld the revisionary order passed under Section 263 of the Act.

disallowing interest incurred on late payment of TDS of Rs. 1,53,531/- without appreciating the facts of the case in the right perspective. 3. The Appellant reserve the right to amend, alter on add to the grounds of appeal. 4.The ground of appeal is without prejudice to the other.” 4. The brief facts of the case are that

BEETLE VENTURES PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 16(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Beetle Ventures Private Limited V. Acit – 16(2) Unit No. 155 Room No. 440, 4Th Floor Shah & Nahar Industrial Estate Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road S.J. Marg, Lower Parel (W) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aafcb9355H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Jayesh Dadiya Department Represented By : Shri Chetan M. Kacha

disallowing the proper allotment of shares. It is not a bar on the 11 M/s. Beetle Ventures Private Limited assessee to issue shares with a premium as per companies Act. As far as invoking provisions of section 56(2)(viib

SURYODAY SMALL FINANCE BANK LTD.(EARLIER KNOWN AS SURYODAY MICRO FINANCE LTD.),NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Sri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 3440/Mum/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2014-15) Suryoday Small Finance Bank The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax-15(3)(2) (Earlier Known As Suryoday Aaykar Bhvan, Mahareshi Micro Finance Ltd.) Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ बनाम बनाम बनाम 1101, Sharda Terraces, Plot Vs. No.65, Sector 11, Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai-400 614 (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" / Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ"/ Respondent) ""यथ" ""यथ" "थायी "थायी लेखा "थायी "थायी लेखा लेखा संसंसंसं./Pan No. Aamcs5499J लेखा : Shri Yogesh Thar, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Vinod Kumar, Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By 05.12.2019 सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 02.03.2020 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य / Per Rajesh Kumar, Am: These Are Appeals By The Assessee Directed Against Respective Orders Of Learned Cit(A) Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Ground Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: -

56(2)(viib) of the Act. GROUND II: DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 36(1)(va) OF THE ACT - RS. 37,56

PNP MARITIME SERVICES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 3 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. Accordingly, grounds no. 1 and 2 raised in Revenue’s appeal are dismissed. 13. Since the issue arising in grounds no. 3 and 4, raised in Revenue’s appeal, and grounds no. 1-3, raised in assessee’s appeal, pertains to disallowance

DCIT 3(2)92) , MUMBAI vs. M/S PNP MARTITIME SERVICES PVT LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. Accordingly, grounds no. 1 and 2 raised in Revenue’s appeal are dismissed. 13. Since the issue arising in grounds no. 3 and 4, raised in Revenue’s appeal, and grounds no. 1-3, raised in assessee’s appeal, pertains to disallowance

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of interest paid on loans was also found to be without merit.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 68 of the Income Tax Act", "Section 56(2)(viib

ARM INFRA & UTILITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-6, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

56(2)(viib) of the Act. Further, he observed that CCD includes premium amount which is no longer payable by the assessee, the money changes its character when such amount becomes the assessee’s own money as the assessee itself has treated and accounted it as its own money and credited to Reserves and Surplus of Balance Sheet

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

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act should not be applied to the shares allotted during the year by the assessee-company and depreciation on the intangible assets should not be disallowed

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

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act should not be applied to the shares allotted during the year by the assessee-company and depreciation on the intangible assets should not be disallowed

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

56(2)(viib)", "147", "2(18)(b)(B)", "36(1)" ], "issues": "Whether the addition on account of share premium under Section 68/56(2)(viib) and disallowance