ACIT - CIRCLE- 6(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. DIRECT MEDIA DISTRIBUTION VENTURES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue dismissed and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2715/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Direct Media Distribution Of Income Tax 6(2)(2), Ventures Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai 135, Continental Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 048 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadcd1940Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

price of ₹ 60/- per share. Dish TV India Ltd is also a company forming part of Essel group of companies and it is engaged in the business of providing DTH services. Dish TV India Ltd is a company in which public are substantially interested and its shares are listed in the Bombay Stock Exchange and National Stock Exchange

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

56(2) (viib) or an y other relevant section) Outcome: in the submission it was found that th assessee Company has issued shares on the fair market value of its shar derived by the professional and method as prescribed under Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Hence no action taken on this issue.” 4.4. On perusal

DREAMS DWELLERS LLP(AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF MEGACORP DEVELOPERS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT -24(1) (EARLIER ACIT CIR 10(1)(1), MUMBAI), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dreams Dwellers Llp (As Legal Acit-24(1) (Earlier Acit Cir 10(1)(1) Representative Of Megacorp Mumbai), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai) Room No. 604, 6Th Floor, Piramal 702, Natraj, Mv Road, Junction W E Chambers Parel, Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400069. Pan No. Aafcm 0366 B Appellant Respondent

transfer description and terms of redemptions etc. T The provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act gets attracted when a unlisted section 56(2)(viib) of the Act gets attracted when section 56(2)(viib) of the Act gets attracted when company receives the consideration for issue of share in excess of company receives the consideration for issue

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

price of Rs. 600 per share. (of which Rs. 590 per share was towards the securities premium). Thus the assessee received a securities premium of Rs. 58,99,99,990. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish the details of the shareholders from whom the share premium was received. The assessee was also asked to justify

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

price of Rs. 600 per share. (of which Rs. 590 per share was towards the securities premium). Thus the assessee received a securities premium of Rs. 58,99,99,990. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish the details of the shareholders from whom the share premium was received. The assessee was also asked to justify

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

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 of the assets in the balance

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 included within the definition of income in section 2(24) [Para 42]. It was contended by the revenue that income becomes taxable no sooner it accrues or arises or when it is deemed to accrue or arise and not only when it was received. It is submitted that even though the petitioner did not receive

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 included within the definition of income in section 2(24) [Para 42]. It was contended by the revenue that income becomes taxable no sooner it accrues or arises or when it is deemed to accrue or arise and not only when it was received. It is submitted that even though the petitioner did not receive

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 included within the definition of income in section 2(24) [Para 42]. It was contended by the revenue that income becomes taxable no sooner it accrues or arises or when it is deemed to accrue or arise and not only when it was received. It is submitted that even though the petitioner did not receive

TPG GROWTH II MAKETS PTE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 4 raised by the Appellant is partly allowed

transfer pricing provisions were introduced by way of insertion of Section 92 to Section 92F in Chapter X of the Act containing special provisions relating to avoidance of tax in the year 2001. Section 92(1) of the Act provides that income arising from ‘International Transaction’ shall be computed having regard to the arm’s length price. Section

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

price of Rs.75/- per share comprising face value of Rs.10 per share and premium of Rs.65/- per share: 1. Foglight Investment Limited - 1000 2. Board Street Investments (Singapore) Pte Ltd - 450 3. MBD BridgeStreet 2015 Investments (Singapore) Pte Ltd- 50 11. In relation to allotment of share, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee obtained valuation report from M/s D.B Ketkar

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

price to premium in the industrial, normal and actual worth of the company. 9. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sreelekha Banerjee & Others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax held that if explanation is unconvincing and one which deserves to be rejected, the Department can reject and draw the inference that the amount represents income either from

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

price to premium in the industrial, normal and actual worth of the company. 9. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sreelekha Banerjee & Others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax held that if explanation is unconvincing and one which deserves to be rejected, the Department can reject and draw the inference that the amount represents income either from

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

price to premium in the industrial, normal and actual worth of the company. 9. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sreelekha Banerjee & Others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax held that if explanation is unconvincing and one which deserves to be rejected, the Department can reject and draw the inference that the amount represents income either from

THERMAX BABCOCK & WILCOX ENERGY SOLUTION LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO/NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

sections": [ "Sec 92C", "Sec 143(3)", "Sec 144C", "Sec 56(2)(viib)", "Sec 36(1)(va)", "Sec 2(24)(x)", "Sec 201(1A)", "Sec 270A", "Sec 271AA" ], "issues": "The core issues revolve around transfer pricing

M/S JR FIBER GLASS INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

transfer to assessee, genuiness of the transaction\ncannot be doubted. Thus, according to him, the assessee has\ndischarged the burden to prove the identity, creditworthiness and\ngenuiiness of the share transaction. So Ld. CIT(A) erred in\nconfirming the addition.\n7.\nPer contra, the Ld. DR submitted that three (3) parties who\nsubscribed namely Prarambh Multitrade Pvt. Ltd, (ii) Kapindra

REKHA SHAH,MUMBAI vs. AO, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeerekha Shah Vs National Faceless Appeal Centre D-614, Veena Santoor, Sector- (Nfac) / Ito-Ward-34(3)(2), 8, Opp. Kvsc, Sai Baba Nagar Mumbai Extension Road, Borivali (W), Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Banda, Mumbai-400 092 Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Abgps4732G Appellant Respondent

transfer of such immovable property. He also submitted that this amendment will take effect from 1st April, 2014 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2014-15 and subsequent assessment years. Therefore,as per section 56(2)(viib), it is clearly mentioned that "any person receives an immovable property without consideration" which is not in the case

CAPITALG INTERNATIONAL LLC (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GC AISA L.L.C.),MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INT TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

sections": [ "143(3)", "144C(13)", "82CA(2)", "56(2)(viib)" ], "issues": "Whether the transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO by rejecting