9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 846X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- out of sale consideration taken by AO at Rs. 73,12,946/- being fair value of 23,597 shares of Minda HUF Ltd. against the sale consideration of Rs. 16,86,790/ - shown by the assessee on the ground that the difference cannot be brought to tax unless there is documentary evidence that there has been understatement of consideration. (sale price @ Rs. 71.48/- per share shown by the assessee as agreed between the parties without any basis) and (sale price taken on fair value of shares by the AO @Rs.309.91 per share) 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case without appreciating the facts of the case properly in directing to accept the purchase price of 60,365 shares of Minda HUF Ltd. (a resident company) from Mls. Hulsbeck & Furst Gmbh & Co. KH (a non-resident company) as shown by the assessee at Rs. 176.29 per share as against Rs. 269.03 per share worked out as per guidelines of the R.B.I. vide Circular No.16 dated 04.10.2004. 4. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter all or any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal and amend, alter or add any other ground of appeal." 2. The facts in brief are that the Assessee filed its return of income on 28 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the impugned order may be cancelled and the AO's order may be upheld. 6. On the contrary, during the hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee draw our attention towards the impugned order and stated that the issue in dispute has already been adjudicated by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in various cases and decided the issue in favor of the assessee. He also draw our attention toward the impugned order again with regard to the relevant part of the CIT's order where he has followed the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision as well as Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court decision. To support the impugned order he also filed the Paper Book containing pages 1 to 128 in which he has attached the various documentary evidence alongwith the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Hon'ble Jurisdictional High court and he requested that the Appeal filed by the Revenue may be dismissed. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records available with us, especially the order passed by the Revenue Authority alongwith the documentary evidence filed by the Assessee in the shape of Paper Book as well as the case laws referred by him. We are of the view that the issues in d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns correctly work out to Rs. 23,44,857/-. The assessing officer was also of the view that the price paid by the appellant for purchase of the shares on 17-10-2006 from M/s Hulsbeck & Furst GmbH & Co. (non-resident company) was understated. The appellant purchased the shares of M/s Minda at Rs. 176.29 per share and has explained that this was the price agreed on between the erstwhile members of the JV. Mls Hulsbeck & Furst GmbH & Co. were the JV partner of Mls Minda HUF Ltd. In order to avoid other persons from gaining control of the business and creating difficulties, the group concerns of M/s Minda HUF Ltd. purchased the shares of the company as per the agreement entered between both parties. M/s Minda HUF Ltd. became M/s Minda Corporation Ltd. and with the loss of brand name of 'HUF' after the said agreement, the price of the shares fell. The appellant had raised a loan for purchase of the shares from the JV partner, and in order to repay the loan the appellant sold its shares at the best price available. It is also submitted that the appellant has no connection with Bhagwat Sewa Trust or Raghav Auto Engineering Pvt. Ltd. to whom the shares were sold. The appellant has al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y interpreted whenever possible. Capital gains tax is not a tax on what might have been received or could have been taxed. In this case, the revenue has made no attempt to establish that there was any understatement though it might be that shares were sold at an under value." In this view of the matter, it is seen that there is no evidence, direct or inferential, that the full consideration has not been disclosed by the appellant. In support of the purchase price of the shares, the appellant has filed the copy of the termination agreement of the joint venture mentioning therein the rates of the shares agreed between the parties, the copy of the share transfer form for the transfer of shares from the JV partner to the appellant and the proof of remittance through bank account. Regarding the shares sold by the appellant, the appellant has submitted copy of the sale bills, confirmations from the parties, copy of bank account of the parties and copy of share transfer forms. On the other hand, the assessing officer has not been able to controvert these evidences and has brought no evidence on record that the appellant had received some price for these shares other than what was declare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
