Tribunal Corrects Tax Error: Assessing Officer's Mistake in Share Valuation Overturned for AY 2014-15, Appeal Dismissed.

The HC upheld the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which corrected the Assessing Officer's error in applying the amended Rule 11UA for AY 2014-15. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, concluding that the AO incorrectly added Rs. 11,84,46,336/- to the respondent's income based on an erroneous share valuation. The HC agreed that no substantial question of law was present, closing the appeal and instructing parties to proceed with the Tribunal's digitally signed judgment.

---

---

Issues involved: Appeal concerning Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15, challenging order by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, regarding addition made by Assessing Officer on share value difference.

Issue 1: Addition made on account of share value difference
The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 11,84,46,336/- to the income of the assessee due to the difference in the value of shares purchased by the respondent from three entities. The respondent had purchased 48% equity of a company at Rs. 5/- per share, supported by a valuation report valuing the shares at Rs. 4.96 per share. The AO valued the shares at Rs. 45.72 per share, resulting in the addition to the income of the respondent due to the difference in value.

Issue 2: Application of Rule 11UA of Income Tax Rules
The AO applied Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which required calculation of fair market value by considering the book value of assets in the balance sheet. However, the formula under Rule 11UA underwent a change from 01.04.2018, which included the value of immovable property for determining the fair market value of unquoted shares. The AO's error in applying the amended Rule 11UA for AY 2014-15 was corrected by the Tribunal in the impugned order.

Conclusion
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and corrected the error in applying the amended Rule 11UA. The High Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, stating that no substantial question of law arises. The appeal was closed, directing parties to act based on the digitally signed copy of the judgment.

---