Mega Offer Avail 65% Off in CA IPCC and 50% Off in all CA CS CMA subjects.Coupon- IPCEXAM65 & EXAM50. Call: 088803-20003

CA Final Online Classes
CA Classes

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

TSI Yatra Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon Vs Addl. CIT, Range-25, New Delhi

LinkedIn


Court :
ITAT New Delhi

Brief :
The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee aggrieved against impugned order, dated 21st December 2018, passed by Ld. CIT (Appeals)- IX, New Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s. 143(3) for the assessment year 2014-15. The Appellant-Assessee has challenged the impugned order on following grounds:

Citation :
I.T.A. No.1068/DEL/2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T.A. No.1068/DEL/2019
Assessment Year: 2014-2015

TSI Yatra Pvt. Ltd.,
United Cyber Park,
Ist Floor, Sector-39,
Gurgaon,
Haryana.
(Appellant) 

vs. ACIT,
Range-25,
New Delhi.
TAN/PAN: AABCT7696P
(Respondent)

Appellant by: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.
Respondent by: Shri S.S. Rana, Sr.D.R.

Date of hearing: 20 11 2020
Date of pronouncement: 14 12 2020

O R D E R

PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM

The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee aggrieved against impugned order, dated 21st December 2018, passed by Ld. CIT (Appeals)- IX, New Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s. 143(3) for the assessment year 2014-15. The Appellant-Assessee has challenged the impugned order on following grounds:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-9, New Delhi [Ld. CIT(A)] has erred in confirming the order of Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Range 25, New Delhi (‘Ld AO’) issued under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) at income of INR Rs.23,69,90,961/- as against the returned loss of INR 1,05,08,901/-.

2. That the order of Ld. CIT (A) confirming additions of INR247,499,862 made by Ld. AO to returned income of theAppellant by invoking provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) of theAct on the premise that Appellant has received considerationin excess of fair market value of shares (issued to the extent of INR 247,499,862, is bad in law as it is not a speaking order and is therefore against principles of natural justice.

3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred gravely on facts as well asin law in confirming action of the Ld. AO of rejecting valuation reports dated 03.04.2013 and 31.03.2014 determining fair market value of shares of the appellant as per Discounted Cash Flow (‘DCF’) method as prescribed under Rule 11UA(2)(b) of the Inco0me-tax Rules (‘the Rules’) at INR 192 per share and INR 274 per share respectively.

3.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) has gravely erred on facts and in lawin confirming the action of Ld. AO of carrying out valuation ofshares of the Appellant as per Net Assets Value (‘NAV’) method.

To know more in details find the attachment file
 

 

Guest
on 16 December 2020
Published in Income Tax
Views : 24
downloaded 4 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags