9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly and re-apply their mind to the same set of materials and come to different conclusions every time. On facts, the Court found that the financials annexed to the return of income disclose two lot of shares, one numbering 1,00,000 and the second numbering 2,17,870 and the valuation thereof has also been clearly stated. After noting the said fact, the learned Single Bench rightly observed that this has not escaped the attention of the Assessing Officer at the original instance and he has, in fact, made a modification to the valuation of the first lot of the shares and for the reasons best known to the Assessing Officer, the second lot has been left untouched. Thus, the Court rightly held that there is no material that has come to the noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mbers of 3% cumulative convertible preference shares of face value of ₹ 10/- each at premium of ₹ 488/- per share, however, the market value of each share calculated as per Rule 11UA(2)(a) of the Income Tax Rules is ₹ 25.20 only. Further, the consideration received from the issue of shares that exceeds the face value of such shares requires to be assessed to tax under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act for brevity). This having been omitted to be considered in the Assessment Order under Section 143(3) of the Act, dated 30.12.2016, the reopening of the assessment has been made. Further, it is pointed out that the Assessing Officer, after considering objections raised by the assessee to the reopening, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e valuation thereof has also been clearly stated. After noting the said fact, the learned Single Bench rightly observed that this has not escaped the attention of the Assessing Officer at the original instance and he has, in fact, made a modification to the valuation of the first lot of the shares and for the reasons best known to the Assessing Officer, the second lot has been left untouched. Thus, the Court rightly held that there is no material that has come to the notice of the Assessing Officer in the year 2018, warranting re-assessment. 7.The Court has also noted the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kelvinator India Limited [(2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC)] and observed that the exis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
