9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Valuation of shares of a private limited company based on different methods and rules.
Analysis: 1. The judgment deals with the valuation of shares of a private limited company upon the death of a shareholder. The Accountable Person declared the value of the shares at Rs. 253 using the average of earning method and yield method. However, the Asstt. Controller revalued the shares at Rs. 513 per share considering the company's shareholdings, goodwill, and other factors. The Accountable Person argued that shares of a going concern company should be valued based on profitability, as per the Supreme Court's decision in the case of CWT vs. Mahadeo Jalan. The court analyzed the different valuation methods and principles laid down by the Supreme Court, emphasizing that no single method is universally applicable. The court ultimately valued the shares at Rs. 325, partially allowing the appeal. 2. The judgment references the case of Kusumben D. Mahadevia vs. CWT and CIT vs. Swadeshi Mining & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. to support the argument that Rule 1-D is not mandatory and that the valuation of shares at Rs. 513 would be excessive even if the rule is applied. The Accountable Person contended that the method followed aligns with the Supreme Court's authorization and that Rule 1D could be an alternative valuation method. 3. The department argued that the valuation considered all contingencies and that the value of assets and liabilities of the company is crucial in determining the market value of shares. The department highlighted that the Supreme Court has not prescribed a rigid rule for such valuations, emphasizing the need to consider the specific circumstances of each case. 4. The judgment discusses various methods of valuing shares of private limited companies, including the yield method, earnings method, break-up method, and Rule 1D of the WT Act. The court notes that no fixed rule applies universally, and the valuation method should be tailored to the specific case. The court refers to principles laid down by the Supreme Court, highlighting factors to consider in valuing shares, such as profitability, company's prospects, and market conditions. 5. The court emphasizes the need for adjustments when applying different valuation methods, considering factors like manipulation of earnings, loss of income sources, or anticipation of losses. The judgment underscores the importance of making suitable adjustments to account for disadvantages inherent in each valuation method. The court also discusses the application of Rule 1D and the necessity of determining the appropriate reduction percentage based on the case specifics. 6. Considering the principles laid down by the court and the flexibility required in valuation processes, the court arrives at a valuation of Rs. 325 for the shares in question. The court notes that the Asstt. Controller's valuation based on break-up value and the Accountable Person's yield method had certain shortcomings, leading to the revised valuation. The court's decision partially allows the appeal, settling the share valuation at Rs. 325 to serve the interests of justice.
|
