9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 710 - AT - Income TaxAddition of share premium amount u/s 56(2)(viib) - Valuation of shares - assessee furnished a valuation report issued by a Chartered Accountant in support of the share premium amount collected by it Chartered Accountant had valued the shares under discounted cash flow method (DCF method) - HELD THAT - AO has proceeded to determine the value of shares in both the years by adopting different method without scrutinizing the valuation report furnished by the assessee under DCF method. Accordingly, following the decisions rendered by the co-ordinate benches, we set aside the orders passed by Ld CIT(A) in both the years and restore the impugned issue in both the years to the file of the AO with the direction to examine this afresh as per the directions given by the co- ordinate bench in the case of Innoviti Payment Solutions P Ltd 2019 (1) TMI 688 - ITAT BANGALORE .
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of share premium amount under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Validity of the valuation method adopted for determining the share premium. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition of Share Premium Amount under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The assessee company, operating in the service sector, issued 3511 equity shares at a premium of ?5,682 per share, collecting a total share premium of ?1,99,51,608. The Assessing Officer (AO) deemed the shares overvalued and, after rejecting the valuation report prepared under the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method, recalculated the share value using the Net Asset Value (NAV) method, determining an excess share premium of ?1,61,88,765 as income under Section 56(2)(viib). The CIT(A) upheld this addition, leading the assessee to appeal. 2. Validity of the Valuation Method Adopted for Determining the Share Premium: The assessee's valuation report, prepared by a Chartered Accountant using the DCF method, was rejected by the AO, who argued that the projections were unrealistic and lacked independent verification. The AO instead adopted the NAV method, which is contrary to the assessee's chosen method under Rule 11UA of the Income-tax Rules. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not scrutinize the valuation report prepared under the DCF method. In similar cases, such as M/s. Valencia Nutrition Limited and M/s. Innoviti Payment Solutions Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to scrutinize the DCF valuation method and, if necessary, conduct a fresh valuation by an independent valuer. The AO must follow the DCF method and cannot switch to the NAV method. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO should scrutinize the DCF valuation report and, if unsatisfied, provide reasons and possibly obtain a fresh valuation from an independent valuer. The basis must remain the DCF method, and the AO cannot change the valuation method opted by the assessee. The Tribunal reiterated that the primary onus to prove the correctness of the valuation report lies with the assessee, who must establish the reliability of projections and other critical inputs used in the DCF model. The AO must base the scrutiny on facts and data available at the time of valuation, not on actual future results. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination, following the directions given in the case of Innoviti Payment Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the stay application was dismissed as moot. Final Judgment: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes and dismissed the stay application. The AO was directed to re-examine the valuation report under the DCF method, adhering to the guidelines established in previous cases and ensuring the method chosen by the assessee is respected. The order was pronounced in the open court on 14th Oct, 2020.
|
