Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the addition made on account of share premium was sustainable under section 56(2)(viib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and alternatively under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The share application money was received in financial years 2006-07 and 2007-08, whereas section 56(2)(viib) was inserted with effect from 01.04.2013. The provision, therefore, did not apply to the year of receipt of the consideration. The assessee had also adopted the discounted cash flow method for valuation, and the Revenue did not follow any prescribed method under Rule 11UA(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 while treating the premium as nil. On the alternative reasoning under section 68, the record showed that the assessee had furnished names, PAN, bank statements, income-tax returns and FIRC details, and no addition had been made by the Assessing Officer under section 68. The later invocation of section 68 by the appellate authority, without prior notice, was also inconsistent with section 251(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Conclusion: The addition was not sustainable either under section 56(2)(viib) or under section 68, and the assessee succeeded on the core issue.