9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1035X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... art of its counter-tax evasion mechanism to deter the generation and use of unaccounted money. Although the contention of the AR that now when the genuineness of the transactions of issuance of preference shares by the assessee company to its director/ex-director had been proved to the hilt, therefore, there was no justification for the A.O to have triggered the deeming provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) i.e a counter tax evasion provision, at first blush appeared to be convincing, but going by the rule of strict literal interpretation that has to be adopted while construing the scope and gamut of a statutory provision the same does not merit acceptance. As Section 56(2)(viib) does not carve out any exception as regards the applicability of the same in a case where the shares are issued to the directors of the company, therefore, the aforesaid contention of the Ld. AR that the same would not apply to the preference shares issued by the assessee company to its director/ex-director cannot be accepted. It is only in cases of ambiguity that the court can use other aids to discern the true meaning but where the statute is clear and the words plain, the legislation has to be given e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstruments, therefore, we find substance in the claim of the Ld. AR that the A.O. had grossly erred in losing sight of the material fact that the subject shares were optionally convertible non-cumulative redeemable preference shares, which, thus, had a strong bearing on the determination of the FMV vis- -vis. nonconvertible preference shares or debt instruments. Observation of the A.O that the assessee company will pay a 10% dividend - As the terms of issuance of the preference shares itself provide for a 100% dividend, i.e. the coupon rate is 100%, therefore, there could have been no justification for the A.O. in assuming payment of 10% dividend every alternate year by the assessee company. Because the terms of preference shares itself provide for a 100% dividend, thus, the aforesaid assumption of the AO that the assessee company would pay a 10% dividend being devoid and bereft of any basis cannot be accepted. Also, we are unable to comprehend on what basis the AO had assumed that the dividend would be paid by the assessee company every alternate year. Once again, as the aforesaid assumption of the A.O. is not backed by any concrete basis, therefore, the same cannot be subscr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the body of the assessment order, as per the terms and conditions on which they have been issued by the assessee company, inter alia, in the event of winding up shall not be entitled to its assets, therefore, their FMV in our view cannot be safely determined based on the Net Asset Value (NAV) method. At the same time, we are of the view that the fact that the subject shares are optionally convertible preference shares would in itself be a primary factor to be considered in the backdrop of the unlisted equity shares, and thus, will have a strong bearing while determining of their FMV by an analyst. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid deliberations direct the A.O to redetermine the FMV of the subject preference shares subject to our observations recorded as regards the mistakes/infirmities that had crept in the determination of the same. The Ground of Appeal No. 1 is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations. - Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member And Shri Arun Khodpia, Accountant Member For the Assessee by : S/Shri Vijay Mehta, CA, Amit M. Jain, Advocate, Bikram Jain, Dinesh Jain, CAs For the Revenue by : Shri S.K Meena, CIT-D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act, wherein, he was directed to produce evidence regarding the identity and creditworthiness of the persons from whom share capital/premium was received during the year, and also the genuineness of the respective transactions. However, as the assessee company had failed to substantiate the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of certain investors, therefore, it had offered an amount of Rs.37.02 crore as its undisclosed income during the course of the aforesaid proceedings, as under: F.Y. A.Y. Amount disclosed (in Rs.) Remarks 2013-14 2014-15 1.45 crore 2014-15 2015-16 25.08 crore Declared in the hands of Luminious Infra Properties for A.Y. 2014-15 and A.Y. 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 10.49 crore Rs. 10.49 crore represents only the premium amount. Total share capital and premium received is of Rs. 11.55 crore Total 37.02 crore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribed in the Act, hence the value of equity shares had been taken as the value for the preference shares. However, the A.O. did not find favor with the aforesaid explanation of the assessee company. Referring to Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, the A.O. observed that the Net Asset Value ( NAV , for short) method that was used by the assessee company for valuing the equity shares could not have been adopted for valuing the preference shares that were issued during the year. Also, the A.O observed that as the assessee company had issued preference shares to Shri Anand Singhania, director and Shri Priyank Singhania, Ex-director of the assessee company, therefore, the value at which the said related persons would have invested in the shares could by no means be taken as a true market value of the preference shares. 5. The A.O, thereafter, referred to terms and conditions based on which preference shares were issued by the assessee company, which reads as under (as extracted from the assessment order): The company has allotted 100% Non-Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shares of Rs.10/- at a premium of Rs.100/- each. The said preference shares are redeemable within 20 y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rence shareholders only when it is also paid to the equity shareholders, it is assumed that the assessee pays 10% dividend every alternate year b) That it is redeemed at the end of 20 years at the same value i.e. 110 c) That the discounting is made at 12%, which is the risk-adjusted rate for preference share which is non-cumulative and it is not secured against assets. The going rate for secured debt is about 10-11% and that for equity is about 14-15%. Therefore, adoption of 12% is appropriate. d) By adopting this, we get the FMV as Rs. 5/- (rounded off). 15. Accordingly, the fair market value of the Preference Shares works out to be Rs. 5/- per share, whereas shares have been issued at Rs.110/- per share. 16. In light of the above, the excess premium amounting to Rs. 8,16,58,500/- [computation as per Annexure A] is added back to the returned income of the assessee for A.Y. 2017-18 as income from other sources under section 56(2)(viib) read with Rule 11 UA. The A.O., observing that the assessee company had issued 7,77,700 preference shares at a premium of Rs.105/- per share, made a consequential addition of Rs.8,16,58,500/- u/s.56(2)(viib) r.w. R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... If the company makes a profit, they must receive their fixed dividend before the ordinary shareholders are paid. Dividends, in case of preference shareholders are fixed. Hence, there need not be any speculation as to what the pattern of dividend payouts will. Whether, it will be constant as in the case of the dividend discount model or whether they will grow at a constant rate like in Gordon growth model. The cash flow timings and amounts are almost certain in case of preference shares. Thus, the claim of the appellant that the preference shares partakes characteristics of equity shares is unacceptable. However, the same are quasi debt in nature as discussed by the Id AO. 3.1.2 The AO has invoked provisions of section 56(2)(viib) r.w.r 11UA of the Act. Provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act have been inserted via Finance Act, 2012. For ready reference the relevant extract of the section 56(2)(viib) of the Act is reproduced hereunder:- (vilb) where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year, from any person being a resident; any consideration for issue of shares that exceeds the face value o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he purposes of sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of Explanation to clause (viib) of sub-section (2) of section 56 shall be the value, on the valuation date, of such unquoted equity shares. as determined in the following manner under clause (a) or clause (b), at the option of the assessee, namely: (a) fair market value of unquoted equity shares = (A-L) *(PV)/(PE) A= book value of the assets in the balance-sheet as reduced by any amount of tax paid as deduction or collection at source or as advance tax payment as reduced by the amount of fax claimed as refund under the Income-tax Act and any amount shown in the balance-sheet as asset including the unamortized amount of deferred expenditure which does not represent the value of any asset. L= book value of liabilities shown in the balance-sheet. but not including the following amounts, namely: (i) the paid-up capital in respect of equity shares; (ii) the amount set apart for payment of dividends on preference shares and equity shares where such dividends have not been declared before the date of transfer of a general body meeting of the company: (iii) reserves and surplus, by whatever name called, even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove that the valuation done by the AO was incorrect. 3.1.4 Furthermore, the Act does not specify any specific method for determining face value of preference shares, however, provisions of section 11UA(1)(c) of the Act defines that the fair market value of unquoted shares shall be estimated at a price which it would fetch in a open market on the valuation date. To determine that, the best and mostly adopted method for valuation of preference shares is DCF method which has been adopted by the AO. Further, provisions of section 56(2)(viib) does not make any distinction between equity shares and preference shares. For valuation of preference shares, as per Rule 11UA(1)(c), the appellant is required to obtain a report from a merchant banker or CA to determine price which preference shares would fetch if sold in open market as on the valuation date. However, no such report have been furnished by the appellant for determining fair market value of preference shares by DCF method. Per contra, the appellant has furnished a report of CA determining value of preference shares by NAV method. The appellant by placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur in the case of Ginni Glo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the grass root level i.e. by the AO itself. Therefore, the facts of the case of M/s Ginny Global (supra) are entirely different and distinguishable from the case of the appellant. It is settled legal proposition that in the case of dispute arising out in any situation, the widely used concept should be adopted. As discussed herein above, the preference shares hold nature of debt instrument, therefore, the DCF method which is widely used and most appropriate for determining fair market value is to be adopted in the case of appellant, as adopted by the Id AO. 3.1.6 The appellant has also contended that the AO has not doubted the genuineness of money brought into preference shares. Therefore, in view of various judicial pronouncement provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act cannot be invoked. In this regard, it has been found that survey u/s 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the appellant on 29.07.2016. Statement on oath u/s 131 of the Act was recorded, wherein, the appellant failed to produce the documentary evidence regarding the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction in relation to equity shares and preference shares. Accordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present appeal lies in a narrow compass, i.e. as to whether or not the preference shares issued by the assessee company to S/shri Anand Singhania and Priyank Singhania (supra) @ Rs.110/- per share was at Fair Market value (FMV)? 11. Before proceeding any further, we deem it fit to cull out the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, which at the relevant point of time read as under: 56(2) In particular; and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income tax under the head income from other sources namely :- *********** (viib). where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year, from any person being a resident, any consideration for issue of shares that exceeds the face value of such shares, the aggregate consideration received for such shares as exceeds the fair market value of the shares: Provided that this clause shall not apply where the consideration for issue of shares is received (i) by a venture capital undertaking from a venture capital company or a venture capital fund ; or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s shares and equity shares where such dividends have not been declared before the date of transfer at a general body meeting of the company; (iii) reserves and surplus, by whatever name called, even if the resulting figure is negative, other than those set apart towards depreciation; (iv) any amount representing provision for taxation, other than amount of tax paid as deduction or collection at source or as advance tax payment as reduced by the amount of tax claimed as refund under the Income-tax Act, to the extent of the excess over the tax payable with reference to the book profits in accordance with the law applicable thereto; (v) any amount representing provisions made for meeting liabilities, other than ascertained liabilities: (vi) any amount representing contingent liabilities other than arrears of dividends payable in respect of cumulative preference shares; : PE = total amount of paid up equity share capital as shown in the balance sheet; PV = the paid up value of such equity shares;] (c) the fair market value of unquoted shares and securities other than equity shares in a company which are not listed in any recognized stock exch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bilities; (vi) any amount representing contingent liabilities other than arrears of dividends payable in respect of cumulative preference shares PE= total amount of paid up equity share capital as shown in the balance sheet; PV= the paid up value of such equity shares; or (b) the fair market value of the unquoted equity shares determined by a merchant banker as per the Discounted Free Cash Flow method; (emphasis supplied by us) 12. Shri Vijay Mehta, Ld. Authorized Representative (for short AR ) for the assessee company to buttress his claim that both the lower authorities had grossly erred in dislodging the valuation of the preference shares which was rightly disclosed by the assessee company, had come forth with multi-facet contentions, viz., (i). that as Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act was as a counter tax evasion provision that was made available on the statute to prevent the laundering of unaccounted income, therefore, the allotment of preference shares by the assessee company to Shri. Anand Singhania, director and Shri. Priyank Singhania, Ex-director, which were genuine transactions, wherein the assessee company had established that both the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resent case, the subject preference shares had been allotted by the assessee company to its director and ex-director, viz. S/shri Anand Singhania and Priyank Singhania, wherein the identity and creditworthiness of both the shareholders, as well as the genuineness of the transactions of allotment of shares were proved beyond doubt therefore, the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, i.e. an anti-abuse provision could not have been triggered and brought into play for drawing adverse inferences in the hands of the assessee company. 14. Shri Vijay Mehta, Ld. A.R, submitted that now when the transactions of allotment of subject preference shares by the assessee company to its aforesaid director/ex-director had been tested and found to be genuine business transactions, i.e. without any element of tax avoidance, therefore, there remained no occasion to test the FMV of the said shares by triggering the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. The Ld. AR to fortify his aforesaid contention had pressed into service the order of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of Clearview Healthcare (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO, 181 ITD 141 (Delhi). Also, the Ld. AR had drawn support from the order of the IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could not have been triggered in such a situation. The Ld. AR had further drawn our attention to the order of the ITAT, Raipur in the case of Chhattisgarh Metaliks and Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO, ITA No.102/RPR/2019 dated 26.07.2022, Page 166 to 185 of APB. In the aforesaid order, the Tribunal after taking cognizance of the CBDT Circular No.10/2018 dated 31.12.2018 which was thereafter withdrawn, had observed, that as the aforesaid statutory provision was introduced as an anti-abuse measure to prevent the laundering of unaccounted money, therefore, the same being a counter tax evasion mechanism to prevent the laundering of unaccounted money could not have been triggered in the case of issuance of bonus shares, allotting of shares to existing shareholders in proportion to their existing shareholding (akin to the issue of right shares). 18. The Ld. AR adverting to the second facet of his contentions, submitted that both the lower authorities had grossly erred in law and facts of the case in discarding the valuation of the preference shares by the assessee company based on Net Asser Value Method. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that as per Explanation to Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the preference shares was not disputed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), who had applied the same method to work out the valuation. In fact, the controversy before the Bench had arisen only concerning the value of land and building that was considered by the TPO for arriving at NAV. The Ld. AR submitted that the Tribunal in the aforesaid case, had observed that on a conjoint reading of sub-clause (b) and (c) of Section 11UA(1)(c), it can safely be gathered that for valuation of preference shares, the guideline value of the immovable property was to be adopted since the same represented economic and commercial value of the preference shares on the date of value. Also, the Ld. AR submitted that the aforesaid observation of the Tribunal read a/w. the fact that the A.O/TPO had adopted NAV method for determining the FMV of preference shares left no ambiguity on the aspect that the valuation of the preference shares could safely be carried out as per Net Asset Value method as was so done by the present assessee company. 19. The Ld. AR had further submitted that the factual observation of the A.O who had determined the FMV of the preference shares as per the dividend discounti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut perversity in the assumption of the A.O. that the dividend would be paid by the assessee company every alternate year. The Ld. A.R, referring to the observation of the A.O. that the assessee company had no dividend payment history, submitted that it was incomprehensible as to how the same would be relevant regarding the dividend that would be payable by the assessee company in the future period. The Ld. AR, to fortify his aforesaid contention, submitted that an investor at the stage of investing looks at the potential of the company as to whether or not it can pay a dividend in the future, and also, certain other factors like convertibility into equity shares, redemption premium, etc. The Ld. AR submitted that the A.O. had as per his convenience failed to consider all the aforesaid factors, and most arbitrarily, and rather without any basis assumed that the assessee company would pay a 10% dividend every alternate year. 21. Apropos the discount rate of 12% that was adopted by the A.O. while determining the FMV of the subject preference shares, the Ld. AR submitted that no basis for the adoption of the said rate is discernible from the record. The Ld. AR submitted that the A.O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home his contentions. 24. As observed by us hereinabove the controversy involved in the present appeal boils down to the solitary issue, i.e. as to whether or not the A.O is right in law and facts of the case in rejecting the valuation of the preference shares that were issued by the assessee company to S/shri Anand Singhania and Priyank Singhania, i.e director and ex-director by adopting the Net Asset Value method, and substituting the same by dividend discounting method ?. Also, as a corollary flowing thereto, another aspect that emerges from the aforesaid controversy is as to whether or not, the A.O while determining the FMV of the subject preference shares as per the dividend discounting method , i.e., at Rs.5/- per share as against that issued by the assessee at Rs.110/- per share had properly considered all the material facts.? 25. As the Ld. AR based on his multi-facet contentions had assailed the determination of the FMV of the preference shares as pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... res are issued to the directors of the company, therefore, the aforesaid contention of the Ld. AR that the same would not apply to the preference shares issued by the assessee company to its director/ex-director cannot be accepted. Apropos the support drawn by the Ld. AR from the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P Varghese Vs. ITO (supra) to impress upon us that the scope of applicability of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act that has been made available on the statute vide the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 should be gathered in the backdrop of the budget Speech of the Finance Minister while tabling the Union Budget for 2012-13, the same, we are afraid would not carry the case of the assessee company any further. The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of K.P Varghese Vs. ITO (supra) had, inter alia, held that the speech made by the mover of the Bill explaining the reason for introducing a statutory provision can certainly be referred to for ascertaining the mischief sought to be remedied by the legislature and the object and purpose for which the said legislation is enacted. Admittedly, the aforesaid statutory provision, i.e. 56(2)(viib) of the Act had been enac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estion the factual observations of the A.O while determining the FMV as per the dividend discounting method , therefore, we shall chronologically deal with the same as under: (i). Redemption of preference shares at the end of 20 years at the same value i.e. Rs.110/- 30. As observed by us hereinabove, the A.O., in the body of the assessment order, while determining the FMV of the subject preference shares had proceeded on the basis that the said shares were redeemable at the end of 20 years at the same value of Rs.110/-. Before us, it is the claim of the Ld. AR, that the aforesaid observation of the A.O. is fallacious and incorrect. Elaborating on his aforesaid contention, the Ld. AR had submitted that the subject 7,78,000 nos. of 100% noncumulative redeemable preference shares issued by the assessee company were redeemable not later than 20 years from the date of allotment. Our attention was drawn by the Ld. AR to the observations recorded by the A.O (Page 4 - Para 12 of the assessment order), and the copy of the Special Resolution that was passed in the extraordinary general meeting of the assessee company, Page 69-70 of APB. 31. We have thoughtfully considered the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... converted into a similar number of fully paid up equity shares by obtaining permission from all preference shareholders. For the sake of clarity, the relevant extract of the resolution is culled out as under: 6. The said shares shall be redeemed on not less than Rs.110/- each or it shall be converted into a similar number (i.e. number of preference shares to be issued) of fully paid-up Equity shares by obtaining permission from all preference shareholders. (emphasis supplied by us) As in a case where the preference shares are convertible into equity shares, the fair market value of such shares would be more than the non-convertible preference shares or debt instruments, therefore, we find substance in the claim of the Ld. AR that the A.O. had grossly erred in losing sight of the material fact that the subject shares were optionally convertible non-cumulative redeemable preference shares, which, thus, had a strong bearing on the determination of the FMV vis- -vis. nonconvertible preference shares or debt instruments. (iii). Observation of the A.O that the assessee company will pay a 10% dividend: 33. Although the A.O. while framing the assessment had assume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct preference shares. Also, we find substance in the Ld. AR s contention that the bank FDR rate as was prevailing during the year in question should have been taken as the appropriate rate of return. (v). Subscription of the preference shares by the promoters of the assessee company 35. On a perusal of the assessment order, it transpires that the A.O while framing the assessment had, inter alia, observed that as the subject preference shares have been issued by the assessee company to S/shri Anand Singhania and Priyank Singhania, i.e. Managing director/Ex-director of the assessee company, therefore, the value at which they have subscribed to the shares could not be taken to be a market value of the preference shares. 36. We have thoughtfully considered the aforesaid observation of the A.O, and though concur with him that subscription of the shares by related persons may not reveal the true market value of the shares but on the said standalone basis it can also not be inferred that the said respective investors would not consider their interests and outcome of the investment while subscribing to the shares. Be that as it may, the A.O., without placing on record any mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were the real owners of the company, the preference shareholders who had no stake over the assets of the company were only vested with a preference over the equity shareholders on repayment of equity. Accordingly, the A.O. was of the view that the Net Asset Value (NAV) method which represented the value of equity shares could not be adopted for determining the FMV of the preference shares. 40. We shall now look into the sustainability of the aforesaid view of the A.O. by carrying out a conjoint reading of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act and Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 41. As per the Explanation to Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act the FMV of the shares shall be the value, viz. (i) as may be determined in accordance with such method as may be prescribed; or (ii) as may be substantiated by the company to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, based on the value, on the date of issue of shares, of its assets, including intangible assets being goodwill, know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licenses, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, whichever is higher. On a perusal of Rule 11UA, we find that the same, inter alia, co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n accordance with the methods as may be prescribed is confined to the determination of FMV of unlisted equity shares, and, the same fails as regards determining the FMV of preference shares. Based on his aforesaid contention, the Ld. AR has claimed that the determination of FMV of preference shares would be as per the mandate of Explanation (a)(ii) of Sec. 56(2)(viib), i.e.- based on the value, on the date of issue of shares, of its assets, including intangible assets being goodwill, know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licenses, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature of the assessee company. The Ld. A.R, based on his aforesaid contention had supported the determination of FMV of the subject preference shares by the Chartered Accountant of the assessee company, i.e, as per Net Asset Value (NAV) method. As observed by us hereinabove, the Ld. A.R. had submitted that now when the determination of FMV of the subject preference shares as per NAV method by the assessee company was as per the mandate of Explanation (a)(ii) of Sec. 56(2)(viib) of the Act; therefore, the A.O had grossly erred in most arbitrarily discarding the same and substitutin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... characteristic on the exercise of the conversion option is that of equity shares, and hence Net Asset value (NAV) method for valuation of these shares need to be considered, but we are unable to accept the said contention. As the subject shares are optionally convertible non-cumulative redeemable preference shares, which, as observed by the A.O in the body of the assessment order, as per the terms and conditions on which they have been issued by the assessee company, inter alia, in the event of winding up shall not be entitled to its assets, therefore, their FMV in our view cannot be safely determined based on the Net Asset Value (NAV) method. At the same time, we are of the view that the fact that the subject shares are optionally convertible preference shares would in itself be a primary factor to be considered in the backdrop of the unlisted equity shares, and thus, will have a strong bearing while determining of their FMV by an analyst. As regards the orders of the coordinate benches of the Tribunal that have been pressed into service by the Ld. A.R, viz. (i). ITAT, C Bench, Bengaluru in the case of Information Technology Park Ltd. Vs. ITO, ITA Nos. 1357 and 1358/Bang/2018 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
