Share premium exceeding fair market value attracts Section 56(2)(viib) addition despite loan conversion claims

ITAT Ahmedabad upheld addition under Section 56(2)(viib) for excess share premium received by assessee. The tribunal rejected assessee's contention that conversion of loans into share capital wouldn't attract the provision, holding that "consideration" has wide implication beyond cash receipts. The tribunal found significant unexplained fluctuation in share premium (Rs. 90 per share in November 2012 versus Rs. 31.67 in March 2013) within same financial year suspicious. Despite assessee's valuation report, Revenue correctly concluded it was afterthought to justify inflated premium. Appeal dismissed, confirming CIT(A)'s order upholding addition for excess premium over fair market value.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Applicability of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on conversion of loans into share capital.
2. Validity of the method used for determining the Fair Market Value (FMV) of shares.
3. Justification for the difference in share premium charged on two different allotments within the same financial year.
4. Levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 56(2)(viib) on Conversion of Loans into Share Capital:

The assessee contended that the conversion of loans into share capital did not involve any fresh inflow of funds and thus Section 56(2)(viib) was not applicable. The provision applies where a company receives consideration for issuing shares that exceeds the FMV of the shares. The Tribunal examined the decision of the ITAT Chandigarh in the case of I.A. Hydro Energy Pvt. Ltd., which held that no consideration was received in the relevant assessment year, thereby invalidating the applicability of Section 56(2)(viib). However, the Tribunal noted that the Himachal Pradesh High Court did not independently examine the applicability of Section 56(2)(viib) in the case of conversion of loans into share capital. The Tribunal concluded that the term "consideration" in Section 56(2)(viib) has a wide implication, encompassing various forms of consideration beyond mere receipt of money. Thus, the conversion of loans into share capital falls within the ambit of Section 56(2)(viib).

2. Validity of the Method Used for Determining FMV of Shares:

The assessee argued that there was no prescribed method for determining FMV of shares during the period from 01.04.2012 to 28.11.2012, as Rule 11UA was notified only on 29.11.2012. The Tribunal observed that the Explanation to Section 56(2)(viib) provided two alternatives for determining FMV: a prescribed method or a substantiated value based on the company's assets. Therefore, the machinery provision for determining FMV was available, and the assessee could have substantiated the FMV based on its assets. The Tribunal found that the assessee's valuation using the DCF method was prepared much later, on 07.12.2015, and was not contemporaneous with the share allotment on 03.11.2012. The Tribunal upheld the Revenue's rejection of the DCF method in favor of the NAV method.

3. Justification for the Difference in Share Premium Charged:

The Tribunal addressed the issue of differing premiums charged on two share allotments within the same financial year. The first allotment on 03.11.2012 was at a premium of Rs. 90 per share, while the second on 26.03.2013 was at Rs. 31.67 per share. The assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for this discrepancy. The Tribunal concluded that such a wide fluctuation in share value within a short period was unjustified, and the Revenue rightly disallowed Rs. 27,72,500/- under Section 56(2)(viib) for excess premium charged on the first allotment.

4. Levy of Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C:

The Tribunal did not provide a detailed analysis on the levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C, as the primary focus was on the applicability of Section 56(2)(viib) and the valuation method for shares. However, the Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal implies that the interest levied by the Revenue was upheld.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Revenue's application of Section 56(2)(viib) on the conversion of loans into share capital, the use of the NAV method for determining FMV, and the disallowance of excess share premium. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's contentions regarding the valuation method and the difference in share premiums.

---