Search Results For: 56(2)(viib)


COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 28, 2020 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 10, 2020 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 56(2)(viib)/ Rule 11UA: The assessee has the choice to choose a prescribed method for ascertaining the market value of the shares transferred. If the assessee has chosen one method of valuation provided under Rule 11UA (i.e. DCF method), the AO has no power or jurisdiction to change that method to another method (All imp judgements referred)

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 assessee are free to adopt any one of the methods

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 20, 2020 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 25, 2020 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
(i) 56(2)(vii)(b): The amendment w.e.f AY 2014-15 will not apply to a purchase transaction of immovable property for which full consideration is paid pre the amendment. Mere registration at a later date will not cover a transaction already executed in the earlier years and substantial obligations have already been discharged and a substantive right has accrued to the assessee therefrom. The Revenue is debarred to cover the transaction where inadequacy in purchase consideration is alleged (ii) Interest u/s 234A & 234B is chargeable with reference to the returned income and not the assessed income

It is not in dispute that purchase transactions of immovable property were carried out in FY 2011-12 for which full consideration was also parted with the seller. Mere registration at later date would not cover a transaction already executed in the earlier years and substantial obligations have already been discharged and a substantive right has accrued to the assessee therefrom. The pre-amended provisions will thus apply and therefore the Revenue is debarred to cover the transactions where inadequacy in purchase consideration is alleged

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 3, 2020 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 11, 2020 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 56(2)(viib)/ Rule 11UA: The legislative intent is to apply s. 56(2)(viib) where unaccounted money received in garb of share premium. The AO has not made out a case that stated money is not clean money. Also, the assessee has given approved valuer (CA) report justifying share premium raised based on valid and prescribed method being DCF and said report is in accordance with ICAI norms. AO has not countered the said report by substitute valuation. Also, if the shares are sold in next FY at much higher amount, the premium cannot be said to be excessive (Lalithaa Jewellery 178 ITD 503 (Chennai) followed)

Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and by applying the principles from the aforesaid decision and legislative intent behind insertion of section 56(2)(viib), I hold that addition made by AO on account of alleged excess share premium is unjustified when those very shares are sold in next financial year at much higher amount after proper due diligence, that to a non resident buyer and further there is no case of unaccounted money being brought in garb of stated share premium, hence, addition made u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act is hereby deleted

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: September 27, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 12, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 56(2)(viib)/ Rule 11UA: The valuation of shares should be made on the basis of various factors and not merely on the basis of financials. The substantiation of the fair market value on the basis of the valuation done by the assessee simply cannot be rejected where the assessee has demonstrated with evidence that the fair market value of the asset is much more than the value shown in the balance sheet

As per the circle rate prescribed by the competent authority, the value of total assets i.e., the fair market value of the land which was converted from ‘agricultural’ into ‘institutional’ comes to Rs.113,00,72,749/-. If the other assets of Rs.9,17,608/- is added to such asset and the total liability of 46,55,69,537/- is deducted, then, the net asset comes to Rs.665,420,820/-. If the same is divided by the number of equity shares of 10,10,000/-, then, the value per share comes to Rs.658.83 which is more than the premium of Rs.5/- charged by the assessee on a share of Rs.10/-. We, therefore, find merit in the argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the valuation of the shares should be made on the basis of various factors and not merely on the basis of financials and the substantiation of the fair market value on the basis of the valuation done by the assessee simply cannot be rejected where the assessee has demonstrated with evidence that the fair market value of the asset is much more than the value shown in the balance sheet

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 27, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 27, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2015-16
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 56(2)(viib): The assessee has the option under Rule 11UA(2) to determine the FMV by either the ‘DCF Method’ or the 'NAV Method'. The AO has no jurisdiction to tinker with the valuation and to substitute his own value or to reject the valuation. He also cannot question the commercial wisdom of the assessee and its investors. The ‘DCF Method’ is based on projections. The AO cannot fault the valuation on the basis that the real figures don't support the projections. Also, the fact that independent investors have invested in the start-up proves that the FMV as determined by the assessee is proper

There is another very important angle to view such cases, is that, here the shares have not been subscribed by any sister concern or closely related person, but by an outside investors like, Anand Mahindra, Rakesh Jhunjhunwala, and Radhakishan Damania, who are one of the top investors and businessman of the country and if they have seen certain potential and accepted this valuation, then how AO or Ld. CIT(A) can question their wisdom. It is only when they have seen future potentials that they have invested around Rs.91 crore in the current year and also huge sums in the subsequent years as informed by the ld. counsel. The investors like these persons will not make any investment merely to give dole or carry out any charity to a startup company, albeit their decision is guided by business and commercial prudence to evaluate a start-up company like assessee, what they can achieve in future

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

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

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

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

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