Home ›

Search Results For: Salil Agarwal

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 15, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 29, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2013-14, 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 56(2)(viib)/ Rule 11UA: Law on how to determine the "FMV" (Fair Market Value) of shares issued by a closely held company explained. The fact that the company is loss-making does not mean that shares cannot be allotted at premium. The DCF method is a recognised method though it is not an exact science & can never be done with arithmetic precision. The fact that future projections of various factors made by applying hindsight view cannot be matched with actual performance does not mean that the DCF method is not correct

Rule 11UA will apply only if option is exercised in sub-clause (i), but if the assessee has been able to substantiate the fair market value in terms of sub-clause (ii), then valuation done by the assessee cannot be rejected simply on the ground that it does not stand the test of method provided in 11U and 11UA. Here the assessee has been able to show that the aggregate consideration received and the shares which were issued does not exceed FMV and has demonstrated the value as contemplated in Explanation (a) and therefore, the working of the assessee as per Explanation (a) sub clause (ii) has to be accepted. Section 56(2)(viib) provides for fair market value to be opted whichever is higher either under sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii). Since the working of FMV so substantiated by assessee company as per sub-clause (ii) is higher than value prescribed u/s 11UA, then same should be adopted for the purpose of valuation of the shares of the assessee company

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 9, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 19, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 1991-92, 1992-93
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 263: Claim that notional interest on funds placed by the s. 10A eligible unit with the H.O. is allowable as a deduction to the H.O. and is exempt in the hands of the s. 10A unit is an “unsustainable view” justifying revision action

The Assessee has not derived any interest income. Therefore, reducing such notional income – which has neither been accrued nor received – from the Assessee’s total income is completely alien to the scheme of the Act. Such notional interest could never form a part of the Assessee’s income and thus the Assessee’s claim that the same is to be excluded under Section 10A of the Act is flawed and wholly unsustainable in law. The view as canvassed on behalf of the Assessee is not, even remotely, plausible

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 13, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 1, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 253/ Rule 27: While the Tribunal can examine all questions which relate to the subject matter of an appeal but, once an issue has attained finality and is not a subject matter of the dispute before the Tribunal, it would not be open for the Tribunal to reopen the issue on the pretext of examining a question of law

Indisputably, the Revenue could also not take recourse to Rule 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. By virtue of the said Rule, a respondent before the Tribunal can support the decision appealed against not only on the grounds decided in favour of the respondent but also on grounds decided against it. However, Rule 27 of the said Rules would not extend to permitting the respondent to expand the scope of an appeal and assail the decision on issues, which are not subject matter of the appeal

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 1, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 26, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
CBDT Instruction No. 3/2011 dated 9.2.2011 specifying monetary limits for filing appeals by the department applies only to appeals filed after that date and not to pending appeals

The appeals and review petitions preferred by the department before the High Court, were disposed of on the basis of the instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 9.2.2011. It is not a matter of dispute, that all the appeals were preferred prior to 2011, whereas, the instructions dated 9.2.2011 clearly indicate in paragraph 11 thereof, that they shall not govern cases which have been filed before 2011, and that, the same will govern only such cases which are filed after the issuance of the aforesaid instructions dated 9.2.2011. In view of the above, the instant appeals are allowed, the impugned orders passed by the High Court hereby set aside

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 13, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 18, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2004-05
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Resale Price Method: If margins of the wholesale distributor can be compared with the margins of the assessee, no adjustment can be made

The assessee used Resale Price Method for benchmarking its international transactions so far as purchase of books is concerned. The claim of the assessee was that its purchase is at arm’s length price because while its gross margin for the …

ACIT vs. Harper Collins Publishers India Ltd (ITAT Delhi) Read More »