TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 44
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....] arising from the assessment order dated 24.04.2021 passed under s. 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act pertaining to assessment year 2018-19. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under:- 1. "That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the initiation of proceedings u/s 263 of the Act and the consequential order passed under section 263 of the Act by the Hon'ble PCIT is wholly unjustified and without exercising proper jurisdiction and therefore bad in law. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble PCIT has erred in passing the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act for the subject year without satisfying the pre-conditions for initiating revisionary proceed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the condition for applicability of section 263 is not fulfilled in the present facts of the case. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble PCIT has erred in proposing an addition to the Appellant's income on account of share premium amounting to INR 49,99,99,950, relating to issuance of CCPS by the Appellant to its holding company, alleging that such share premium is taxable as income as per section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 5.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble PCIT failed to appreciate that the deeming fiction created by the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act are not attracted in the present case, since such issuance is a genuine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant from Category 1 Merchant Banker. 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Hon'ble PCIT has erred in stepping in the shoes of the Ld. AO and directing the Ld. AO to make addition without appreciating the quasi-judicial powers of Ld. AO. 8.1. Without prejudice to the above, the addition proposed and consequential levy of tax proposed vide impugned order passed by Hon'ble PCIT is baseless and erroneous, without considering the complete facts of the present case. The addition proposed vide the impugned order is erroneous as the same is not limited to excess premium but also take within its ambit the face value of shares. 9. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Hon&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee company while issuing CCPS to its holding company. In this regard, Ld. Counsel referred to following decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Hon'ble High Court & Co-ordinate Benches which has addressed the issue in favour of the assessee in the identical facts:- [i] FIS Payment Solutions & Services India Pvt.Ltd. v UOI [W.P.(C)] 10289/2024 judgement dated 29.07.2024 [Del.HC]; [ii] DCIT v Kissandhan Agri Financial Services (P.) Ltd. [2023] 150 taxmann.com 390 (ITAT, Delhi); [iii] M/s. KBC India Pvt.Ltd. vs ITO [ITA No.9710/Del/2019] (ITAT, Delhi); [iv] ACIT vs Dhruv Milkose Pvt.Ltd. [ITA No.843/Del/2019] (ITAT, Delhi); [v] ITO v K.V.Global Pvt.Ltd. [2024] 160 taxmann.com 234 (ITAT,....