9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 1197 - AT - Income TaxIncome from other sources - valuing shares and the procedure to be followed - AO rejected the DCF method followed by assessee and recomputed under NAV method and made addition as income from other sources u/s 56(2)(viib) - HELD THAT - An identical issue was considered in case of M/s. Town Essential Pvt. Ltd. 2021 (7) TMI 17 - ITAT BANGALORE Primary onus to prove the correctness of the valuation Report is on the assessee as he has special knowledge and he is privy to the facts of the company and only he has opted for this method. Hence, he has to satisfy about the correctness of the projections, Discounting factor and Terminal value etc. with the help of Empirical data or industry norm if any and/or Scientific Data, Scientific Method, scientific study and applicable Guidelines regarding DCF Method of Valuation. The order of ld.CIT(A) is accordingly set aside and this issue is remanded to the AO for decision afresh, after due opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. Thus we remand this issue back to the Ld. AO. The Ld. AO is directed to carry necessary verification as directed hereinabove. Assessee is directed to file all relevant documents as called for support the claim. Ld. AO is then to consider the claim in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard to be granted to assessee. Assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues Involved:
1. Appellant challenging order of Ld. CIT(A) regarding taxation of share premium under section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Validity of valuation method used by the appellant for determining share premium. 3. Compliance with principles of natural justice in the appeal process. 4. Impact of recent notifications altering the interpretation of section 56(2)(viib) for startups. Issue 1: Taxation of Share Premium The appellant contested the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to tax share premium under section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act. The Ld. AO observed that the company's shares were overvalued based on the share valuation report using the discounted cash flow (DCF) method. The Ld. AO rejected the DCF method, recomputed the valuation under the Net Asset Value (NAV) method, and added the excess amount as income from other sources. The appellant challenged this addition, arguing that the valuation report was not independently verified and lacked basis, leading to an inflated share value. Issue 2: Valuation Methodology The dispute also centered on the validity of the DCF method for valuing shares. The appellant relied on tribunal decisions emphasizing that once an assessee opts for the DCF method under Rule 11UA(2), the assessing officer cannot unilaterally switch to another valuation method. The tribunal cited precedents to support the view that the AO can scrutinize the valuation report but must base any fresh valuation on the DCF method chosen by the assessee. Following the guidance of the Bombay High Court, the tribunal set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision and directed the AO to reevaluate the valuation under the DCF method, ensuring reasonable certainty in cash flow projections. Issue 3: Principles of Natural Justice The appellant alleged a denial of natural justice by the Ld. CIT(A) due to the appeal process's handling, especially in light of the "Angel Tax" issue and government policies aimed at easing such tax burdens for startups. The appellant sought fair consideration and emphasized the credentials of the investor and founders, highlighting the subsequent sale of shares to foreign investors at a higher price. The tribunal acknowledged the importance of procedural fairness and directed the AO to reexamine the valuation with proper verification and granting the appellant an opportunity to present supporting documents. Issue 4: Impact of Recent Notifications The appellant referenced recent notifications altering the interpretation of section 56(2)(viib) for startups, indicating changes in assessing officer approval requirements. The tribunal noted the evolving regulatory landscape and directed the AO to consider these developments while reevaluating the valuation. The tribunal highlighted the need for reliable future estimates in valuation, especially for startups without past data, emphasizing the consideration of various economic factors affecting the business. In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the valuation issue back to the Ld. AO for reevaluation in accordance with the DCF method and ensuring procedural fairness to the appellant. The judgment reflected a nuanced approach considering legal precedents, valuation principles, natural justice, and regulatory updates impacting startups in the taxation context.
|
