9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 977X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oes not require any interference - additions made u/s 56(2)(viib) are not sustainable in law and, thereby the tribunal has upheld the order passed by the CIT (Appeals) to the said extent and, thereby rejected the appeal filed by the appellant Tribunal. No substantial question of law. - R/TAX APPEAL NO. 266 of 2023 - - - Dated:- 19-6-2023 - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI Appearance: For the Appellant(s) No. 1 : Mrs Kalpanak Raval(1046) For the Opponent(s) No. 1 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI) 1. Heard learned standing counsel Mr. Nikunt Raval for learned advocate Mrs. Kalpanak Raval for the appellant. 2. The pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equently the AO has not accepted the valuation made under DCF method by the assessee and adopted the formula as per Rule 11UA and valued the fair market value of shares at Rs. 10/- per share and treated the premium as excess consideration on issue of share premium received of Rs. 4,70,25,000/- which is covered u/s. 56(2)(vii) of the Act and added the same as income from other sources of the assessee company and also initiated penalty proceeding u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3.3. Thereafter, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the respondent assessee filed an appeal before the CIT (Appeals). CIT (A) passed an order dated 20.9.2018 and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and held that the present respondent appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 36.50 per share which has been rounded off to Rs. 35 per share which includes the Face Value of Rs. 10 and premium of Rs. 25. The chartered accountant has given the details of history of the company, promoter s background and nature of business as well as the present status at the time of valuation. The valuer followed the income approach and applied the DCF method which is the method prescribed by Technical Guide for valuation by ICAI. We find that the Assessing Officer do not find any infirmity in the said valuation report submitted by the Chartered Accountant. In fact, it is seen from the Assessment Order and the remand report, the AO has disregarded the valuation report on the ground it was not made by a merchant banker only and he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 56(2)(viib) as well as Rule 11UA(2) of the Rules observed that as per the aforesaid Rule, fair market value of the shares shall be the value determined under the prescribed formula or as per DCF method which is at the option of the assessee and, therefore the DCF method adopted by the assessee for determining the fair market value of the share as per Rule 11UA2 does not require any interference and therefore the additions made u/S. 56(2)(viib) amounting to Rs. 4,70,25,000/- are not sustainable in law and, thereby the tribunal has upheld the order passed by the CIT (Appeals) to the said extent and, thereby rejected the appeal filed by the appellant Tribunal. 8. We are of the view that no substantial question of law as contained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
