Home › › Page 2

Search Results For: 56(2)(viib)

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
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

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
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.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
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

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
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.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
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.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
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

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
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

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 5 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 27, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 13, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 50C: The stamp duty value on the date of agreement & not date of sale deed has to be taken. The nature of the property on the date of agreement has to be considered. Q whether proviso to s. 56(2)(vii)(b) is curative and retrospective left open

The issue is as to whether the date of agreement or the date of execution of sale deed has to be considered for the purpose of adopting the SRO value under S.50C of the Act. We find that this issue is now settled in favour of the assessee by the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjeev Lal and Smt. Shantilal Motilal V/s. CIT(365 ITR 389) as well as decisions of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal at Visakhapatnam in the cases of M/s. Lahiri Promoters Visakhapatnam V/s. ACIT, Circle 1(1), Visakhapatnam (ITA No.12/Vizag/2009 dated 22.6.2010) and Moole Rami Reddy V/s. ITO (ITA No.311/Vizag/2010 dated 10.12.2010). It is therefore, now settled that the SRO value as on the date of agreement of sale has to be considered for the purpose of computation of capital gains

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 4, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 18, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing: The allotment of shares/ receipt of share application money by the assessee from the AE for a price less than the book value of the shares cannot be regarded as a “deemed loan” by the assessee to the AE and notional interest cannot be imputed thereon

Though the international transaction on capital account per se cannot call for any addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment because of the absence of any provision under the Act charging income from such transactions, but the transactions flowing out of such original transaction on capital account, having impact on the profitability of the assessee, would be required to pass the mandate of Chapter-X of the Act. In other words, if such offshoot transactions of the original transaction on capital account, such as, interest or depreciation are not at arm’s length price, then it is mandatory to determine their ALP and make addition, if any, on account of transfer pricing adjustment

Read more ›