Search Results For: 56(2)(viib)


PCIT vs. PMP Auto Components Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 20, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 26, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 92C: Taxability under Transfer Pricing provisions of shares purchased at value in excess of FMV: As the transaction of purchase of equity shares is a capital transaction and does not give rise to any income, the transfer pricing provisions do not apply. Chapter X is a machinery provision. It can only be invoked to bring to tax any income arising from an international transaction. It is necessary for the revenue to show that income does arise from the international transaction. S. 2(24)(xvi) & 56(2)(viib) are prospective

There is no dispute before us that the transaction of purchase of shares by the respondent of its subsidiary company i.e. A.E. at a price much higher than its fair market value would be international transaction as defined in Section 92(B) of the Act. The only issue before us as considered by the impugned order of the Tribunal is whether Chapter X of the Act would at all be applicable in case of any investment made on capital account. This on the premise that the transaction of purchase of equity share capital would not give rise to any income. We note that similar issue was before this Court in Vodafone 268 ITR 1 and this court inter alia observed that Chapter X of the Act is machinery provision to arrive at the arm’s length price of transaction between associated enterprises

DCIT vs. Varsity Education Management Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: October 24, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 31, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus share premium: The AO cannot assess the share premium as income on the ground that it is "excessive". The share premium worked out in the Valuation Certificate is the minimum amount that can be collected by the assessee under RBI regulations. There is no bar on collecting higher amount as share premium. There are several factors that are taken into consideration while issuing the equity shares to shareholders/investors, such as Venture capital funds and Private Equity funds. The premium is determined between the parties on the basis of commercial considerations and cannot be questioned by the tax authorities. The AO is not entitled to sit on the arm chair of a businessman and regulate the manner of conducting business (All judgements considered)

Once the AO was satisfied with the identity and credit worthiness of the investor and genuineness of transactions, the assessee can be said to have proved the “nature and source” of the cash credits. The amounts received as Share premium are in the nature of capital receipts as per the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone India Services P Ltd (supra) and the assessee has also discharged the onus placed upon it u/s 68 of the Act. In fact, the AO himself accepted the share premium to the extent of Rs.672/- per share as Capital receipt. Hence the “nature” of alleged excess share premium amount cannot be considered as receipt of income nature

ACIT vs. Goldmohur Design And Apparel Park Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 23, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 3, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 56(2)(viib), 68, 147 Bogus share capital/ premium: Entire law on whether alleged excessive premium charged for allottment of shares and alleged inability to prove genuineness of transaction can be assessed as unexplained cash credit explained in the light of High Court judgements

It was a submission on behalf of the Revenue that such large amount of share premium gives rise to suspicion on the genuineness (identity) of the shareholders, i.e., they are bogus. The Apex Court in a case in this context to the preamended section 68 has held that where the Revenue urges that the amount of share application money has been received from bogus shareholders then it is for the Incometax Officer to proceed by reopening the assessment of such shareholder and assessing them to tax in accordance with law. It does not entitle the revenue to add the same to the assessee’s income as unexplained cash credit

Priyatam Plaschem Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 10, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 15, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68/ 56(2)(viib)/ Rule 11 UA(2)(a): Law on whether share capital/ share premium received by a Company from investors can be assessed as 'unexplained cash credit' explained in the light of judgements of the Courts and Tribunal (All imp judgements referred)

The A.O. failed to conduct scrutiny of the documents at assessment stage and merely suspected the transactions in question on the irrelevant reasons. The A.O. did not make any enquiry from the Banker of the Investor and Income Tax record of the Investor Company. The valuation report filed by the assessee support explanation of assessee that shares were issued at premium which were below the fair market value per share of Rs.1221. The assessee, thus, proved the identity of the Investor, its creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in the matter. No material has been produced before us to rebut the explanation of assessee. We, therefore, did not find any justification to sustain the addition

Sunrise Academy of Medical Specialities (India) (P.) Ltd vs. ITO (Kerala High Court) (DB)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 12, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 3, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 56(2)(viib) vs. s. 68: Any premium received by a Company, in which the public does not have substantial interest, on sale of shares, in excess of its face value, can be treated as income from other sources u/s 56(2)(viib). This is not controlled by s. 68 which provides that if the assessee does not provide a satisfactory explanation for the credit, the amount can be assessed as income. If S. 68 is applicable, and the proviso is not satisfied, then the entire amounts credited to the books would be treated as income. If satisfactory explanation is offered as to the source, then the premium paid as revealed from the books will be brought to tax as income from other sources

Any premium received by a Company on sale of shares, in excess of its face value; if the Company is not one in which the public has substantial interest, would be treated as income from other sources, as seen from Section 56(2) (viib) of the Act, which we do not think can be controlled by the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. Section 68 on the other hand, as substituted with the provisos, treats any credit in the books of accounts, even by way of allotment of shares; for which no satisfactory explanation is offered, to be liable to income-tax. Clause (viib) of Section 56(2) is triggered at the stage of computation of income itself when the share application money received, from a resident, by a Company, in which the public are not substantially interested; is above the face value. Then the aggregate consideration received for the shares as exceeds the fair market value will be included as income from other sources. However, when the resident investor is not able to explain the nature and source for the credit seen in the books of accounts of the Company or the explanation offered is not satisfactory then the entire credit would be charged to income tax for that previous year.

Sunrise Academy of Medical Specialities (India) Private Limited v. ITO (Kerala High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 22, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 31, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2015-16
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 143(2) Limited scrutiny: The CBDT Circulars which restrict the right of the AO in limited scrutiny cases apply only in cases where the AO seeks to do comprehensive scrutiny to find if there is potential escapement of income on other issues. However, if the s. 143(2) notice seeks information on whether the share premium is from disclosed sources and is correctly offered to tax, the AO can also inquire into whether the premium exceeds the FMV and is taxable u/s 56(2)(viib)

In a case of this nature, the assessee cannot be heard to contend that the assessing officer has exceeded its jurisdiction in the matter of passing the impugned order merely for the reason that the funds received by them in the form of share premium have been assessed as provided for under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. The circulars relied on by the petitioner have no application to the facts of this case and the same would apply only in cases where the assessing officer needs to take the case of the assessee for a comprehensive scrutiny on a finding that there is potential escapement of income on other issues

Pratik Syntex Private Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 11, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 15, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus share capital: The assessee has to justify the allottment of shares to outsiders at exorbitant premium with cogent material and not bald statements. The fact that s. 56(2)(viib) r.w.s. 2(24)(xvi) comes into effect from AY 2013-14 does not mean that for earlier years the assessee is not required to justify the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction. The burden is very high for closely held companies. Mere submission of name & address, Balance Sheet & bank statement of the subscribers is not sufficient to discharge the onus (all judgements on the point considered)

The assessee did not rely on its own financial statements, business model and financial indicators as are existing in its audited financial statements to justify charging of huge share premium of Rs. 490 per share as against face value of Rs. 10 per share from these new shareholders. The problem got further aggravated when the assessee does not bring on record project report or any other cogent material justifying issue of shares at huge premium which could reflects viability, higher profitability and bright future prospects of the assessee company by implementing project for which funds were raised at huge share premium to justify chargeability of such a huge share premium. The assessee’s claim in statement of fact/written submissions as to justification of share premium / valuation etc are not substantiated through any cogent evidences on record and are merely bald statements which cannot be relied upon in the absence of cogent material/evidences brought on record by the assessee. The assessee raised funds to the tune of Rs. 300 lacs from these new shareholders and it was for the assessee to have brought on record cogent material to substantiate its contentions and if the evidences are withheld by the assessee then it is at assessee’s own peril as presumption will be drawn against the assessee.

DCIT vs. Ozoneland Agro Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: May 2, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 9, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2013-14
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 56(2)(viib) Fair Market Value of shares transferred: Rule 11UA allows the assessee the right to adopt the method of his choice for valuing shares (DCF, NAV etc). The AO has no jurisdiction to insist that the assessee should adopt only a particular method for determining the value of the shares. AOs should not deviate from earlier years’ decisions without assigning any concrete and justifiable reasons. Tax determination cannot be left to whims and fancies of a person. It is a serious task and has to be accomplished in a disciplined manner. If an assessee has been allowed a certain concession in earlier year/(s) it cannot be withdrawn in subsequent years without plausible reasons

Section 56 allows the assessees to adopt one of the methods of their choice. But,the AO held that the assessee should have adopted only one method for determining the value of the shares.In our opinion,it was beyond the jurisdiction of the AO to insist upon a particular system, especially the Act allows to choose one of the two methods.Until and unless the legislature amends the provision of the Act and prescribes only one method for valuation of the shares,the assessees are free to adopt any one of the methods.

Pragati Financial Management Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Calcutta High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 7, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 28, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Bogus share capital: Mere fact that payment was received by cheque or that the applicants were companies borne on the file of the Registrar of Companies does not prove that the transaction was genuine. Even under the unamended s. 68, the onus is on the assessee prove the creditworthiness of the subscribers. Argument that the amendment to s. 68 is not retrospective is not required to be considered

We have already observed that the judgment in the case of Rajmandir Estates Private Ltd. (supra) was delivered considering the unamended provision of Section 68 of the Act. In the case of the assessees before us, there is no differing feature so far as applicability of the said statutory provision is concerned, even though the Tribunal in Subhalakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. (supra) had held that the provisos to Section 68 of the Act are retrospective in their operation, and delivered the decision against the assessee in that case that reasoning. In the appeal of Rajmandir Estates Private Ltd. (supra), the Coordinate Bench did not consider it necessary to examine the question of retroactivity of the aforesaid provision. The Coordinate Bench found the order of the C.I.T. to be valid examining the order applying the unamended provision of Section 68 of the Act only. We do not find any other distinguishing element in these appeals which would require addressing the question as to whether the amendment to Section 68 of the Act was retrospective in operation or not. Neither do we need to address the issue that if the inquiries, as directed, revealed that share capital infused were actually unaccounted money, whether the same could be taxed in accordance with Section 56(2) (vii b) or not

Royal Rich Developers Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 24, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 14, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Bogus share capital: Interplay between s. 56(2)(viib) and s. 68 explained. Amendment to s. 68 casting onus on assessee and requiring it to explain source of source of share subscription is clarificatory and retrospective. Law in Lovely Exports 299 ITR 268, Sophia Finance 205 ITR 98 etc does not apply as they are prior to the Money Laundering Act 2002

A conjoint reading of proviso to section 68 and section 56(2)(viib) divulges that where a closely held company receives, inter alia, some amount as share premium whose genuineness is not proved by the assessee company or its source etc. is not proved by the shareholder to the satisfaction of the AO, then the entire amount including the fair market value of the shares, is chargeable to tax u/s 68 of the Act. If however, the genuineness of the amount is proved and the shareholder also proves his source, then the hurdle of section 68 stands crossed and the share premium, to the extent stipulated, is chargeable to tax u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act. It shows that only when source of such share premium in the hands of a shareholder is properly explained to the satisfaction of the AO, that the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) gets triggered

Top