9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an Singh (1981 -TMI - 29585 - DELHI High Court) has held that difference between the market value and the consideration declared was not sufficient, and it was also necessary to show that the assessee had received more than what is declared or disclosed by him as consideration of sale of shares. Even the burden to show this lies on the Department. - Decided in favor of assessee. - ITA No.791/2009 - - - Dated:- 25-11-2011 - MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA J Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate For Appellant M.L. MEHTA, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act ) against the order dated 25.4.2008 passed by learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( the Tribunal for short) in Appeal No.1056/DEL/2006 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of CIT(A), the Tribunal held as under: By impugned order the CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing that the value of share of unlisted companies depends to a very large extent on future profitability, degree of mobility and the financial needs of the seller and the book value of the assets of the company. In support of book value the assessee has relied upon the CCI guidelines to determine the book value of unlisted shares. In the absence of any specific method for computation of book value of share of unlisted company the guidelines of erstwhile Controller of Capital Issues can form a reasonable basis for determination of the value of share of unlisted companies. Having alleged that the assessee had received a sum of Rs.4,5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng at the above conclusion, we are also supported from the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal v Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. wherein it was held as under: The question that, when an assessee transfers some of his stock-in-trade to another person at a price less than the market price, whether that assessee can be considered to have made any profit merely because he has transferred some of his stock-in-trade not at the market price but at a lesser price, camp up for consideration before the High Court of Madras in Sri Ramalinga Choodambikai Mills Ltd. v Commissioner of Income Tax [(1055) 28 ITR 952. The facts of that case as set out in the head-note are: a limited company sold certain goods showed in its stock-in-price to it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e purchasers at the expense of the company would not entitle the Income Tax department to assess the difference between the market price and the price paid by the purchasers, as profits of the company. 6. The Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Vargheese v Avtar Mohan Singh (Mrs.) [1982] 136 ITR 645 (Delhi) has held that difference between the market value and the consideration declared was not sufficient, and it was also necessary to show that the assessee had received more than what is declared or disclosed by him as consideration of sale of shares. Even the burden to show this lies on the Department. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any illegality of perversity in the impugned order. The appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
