2023 (10) TMI 398 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 56(2)(viib) - AO rejected the valuation made by the valuer under DCF method and valued the share at Rs. 196 per share being book value of shares and thus made the addition of differential amount - CIT(A) limiting the investment to only the investment which yield dividend income AND allowing the interest expenses by observing that the assessee has its own fund HELD THAT - We note that in this case, ld. CIT (A) has given a finding that actual performance of the assessee is even better than the forecast. Hence, any adverse inference on account of forecast is not appropriate and sustainable. Further, we note that ld. CIT (A) has passed a very reasonable and elaborate order. As decided in M/S. KILITCH HEALTHCARE INDIA LTD. AND (VICE-VERSA) 2022 (4) TMI 323 - ITAT MUMBAI Rule 11UA(1)(C)(c) which is the relevant here, provides that the fair market value of unquoted shares and securities other than equity shares in a company which are not listed in any recognized stock exchange shall be estimated to be price it would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date and the assessee may obtain a report from a merchant banker or an accountant in respect of which such valuation. Admittedly, this rule is applicable in the present case and as provided in the said rule the assessee had option to obtain fair market value on the basis of valuation done by the accountant. Now the assessee has obtained valuation of accountant. Section 56(2)(vii)(b) provides fair market value of shares to be the one as may be determined in accordance with the method as may be prescribed or as may be substantiated to the satisfaction of Assessing Officer. Hence, if the method adopted by the assessee is not in accordance with the Rules contained in Explanation (a)(i) to section 56(2)(vii)(b), above any other method to the satisfaction of the AO can be adopted. The obvious corollary is that if the method adopted by the assessee is in accordance with the method contained in the Act read with Rules, the AO cannot disregard the same without cogent reasoning. Admittedly in this case the assessee has adopted a method which is in accordance with that prescribed in the Act read with the Rules. Prescribed method for unquoted shares is not any specific method but it provides that assessee may obtain valuation report from merchant banker or accountant. In this case the assessee has obtained valuation report of the accountant. To this extent, valuation adopted by the assessee cannot be said to be not in accordance with law - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Limitation of investment to only those yielding dividend income.
2. Allowance of interest expenses based on the assessee's own funds.
3. Valuation of shares under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Summary:

1. Limitation of Investment to Dividend Yielding Investments:
The Revenue contended that the CIT (A) erred in limiting the investment to only those yielding dividend income. The Tribunal did not find substantial discussion on this specific issue in the detailed order, suggesting that the primary focus was on the valuation of shares and the allowance of interest expenses.

2. Allowance of Interest Expenses:
The Revenue argued that the CIT (A) erred in allowing interest expenses by observing that the assessee had its own funds. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, noting that the CIT (A) had properly appreciated the facts and supported the findings with relevant case laws.

3. Valuation of Shares under Section 56(2)(viib):
The core issue revolved around the valuation of shares where the Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method used by the assessee and instead valued the shares based on the book value method. The CIT (A) observed that the assessee's projections were realistic and supported by actual performance, which was better than the forecast. The Tribunal noted that the CIT (A) passed a reasonable and elaborate order, emphasizing that the DCF method used by the assessee was appropriate and in accordance with Rule 11UA of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal also referenced Section 56(2)(viib) and Rule 11UA, stating that the AO cannot reject the DCF method if it complies with the prescribed rules. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision to delete the addition made by the AO under Section 56(2)(viib).

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT (A)'s order that the valuation of shares at Rs. 1,500/- was in accordance with the law and that the addition made by the AO was not tenable. The Tribunal pronounced the order in the open court on October 9, 2023.