| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण (cid:12)ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT &

SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3083/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 I.T.A. No. 3084/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 DCIT, 2(2)(1) Max Hospitals and Allied Vs Services Limited

401, 4th Floor Man Excellenza SV Road, Ville Parle Mumbai - 400056 [PAN: AAGCR9198D]

अपीलाथ(cid:22)/ (Appellant) (cid:23)(cid:24) यथ(cid:22)/ (Respondent)

Assessee by : Dr. K. Shivram a/w Shri Rahul Hakkani, A/R Revenue by : Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 05/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 11/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:

I.T.A. No. 3083/Mum/2025, I.T.A. No. 3084/Mum/2025, I.T.A.

No. 3085/Mum/2025 are three separate appeals by the revenue preferred against three separate orders of NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter ‘the ld. CIT(A)’] pertaining to AY 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19.

2. Since common grievance is involved in the captioned appeals, they were heard together and are disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

3. The representatives were heard on the facts of AY 2016-17 where the grievance of the revenue reads as under:-

“Ground no. I "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of security premium amounting to Rs. 10,73,82,810/-u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act without considering the defects pointed out by the Assessing Officer in the valuation report of shares under Discounted cash flow method by Merchant Banker in its assessment order?"

Ground no. 2 "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of depreciation @ 25% amounting to Rs: 6,25,00,000/- on the deposit of Rs. 25 Crores paid to the Society running the BN Nanavati hospital without appreciating the fact that the payment of deposit made by the assessee was only conditioned and that assessee would get refund of such deposit in case of cancellation?"

Ground no. 3 "The apellant craves the leave to add, amend, alter and/or delete any of the grounds of appeal as above."

4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assesse filed its return of income for AY 2016-17 on 14/10/2016 declaring total loss for the year at Rs. 5,49,54,209/-. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 19/12/2018 accepting the returned income of the assessee. Later on, the assessment order was set aside by the PCIT u/s 263 of the Act pursuant to which fresh assessment proceedings were initiated.

5. During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee received share premium of Rs. 10,73,82,810/-. The AO noticed that the valuation was done on the basis of discounted cash flow method (DCF method) wherein PAT for the FY 2015-16 and 2016-17 was shown at Rs.33.81 crore, Rs.30.67 crore and Rs.27.32 crore respectively. The AO found that the assessee had suffered losses in FY 2014-15 and 2015-16 and had no revenue from operations during these two years. The AO formed a belief that the valuation report was only made to justify the premium of Rs. 10,73,82,810/-.

6. The assessee made strong submissions claiming that the FMV of shares was derived as per methods prescribed under Rule 11UA(2)(b) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter “the Rules”) r.w.s. 56(2)(viib) of the Act. The AO observed that the assesse has issued 1,07,38,281 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each at a premium of Rs. 10/- each to promoters &

persons other than promoters.

6.1. Based on the above facts, the AO came to the conclusion that the valuation of share prices is not correct for the following reasons:-

1. “As stated above, the assessee company has been incorporated May 2014 and the estimates of the accounts were much higher implying that the assessee had adopt