TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 336
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... deleting the Short Term Capital Gain of Rs. 8,30,94,577/- entirely on the submission of the assessee and completely ignoring the detail findings given by the A.O? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the excess amount i.e. premium beyond the actual worth, of Rs. 8,30,94,577/- received by the assessee on account of sale of shares is not income from other sources? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding that the sale of shares of the Company is not a slump sale u/s SOB without appreciating the fact that the above transaction resulted in changing the substantial share holding of the company and thus it was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oceedings from details filed by assessee Ld. AO observed that assessee had received subscription money from Helion Ventures Partners India Ltd., amounting to Rs. 2,02,98,782/- on 23.05.2007 and Rs. 6,55,36,000/- on 07.08.2007. Assessing officer asked FIRC copy, to prove the genuineness of cash credit. Assessee submitted required documents and submitted that Helion Ventures Partners India Ltd., was a reputed international venture capital fund based at Mauritius. Ld. AO, however, treated Rs. 8,30,94,577/- as revenue receipt and added it to income of assessee. 5. Aggrieved by addition made by assessing officer, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by assessing officer. 6. Aggrieved by order of Ld. CIT(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....verifying the transaction through competent authority of the Government of Mauritius. The investigation report forwarded by FT & TR-Division does not indicate any non genuine transaction in this case. The AO has not questioned the genuineness of the transaction and hence the issue is not to be examined u/s 68 of the Act. ln this facts and circumstances, it can be seen that price of shares is fixed by virtue of agreements as mutually agreed between two parties, Unless the AO has brought some other material facts of the record to contradict the agreed price, the price agreed has to be accepted as correct. Price charged above the book value and paid by the buyer is a business consideration which to be left to the buyer and seller. As far as "s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I they permit the parties to the transactions to fix the terms and price of issue of shares in case of non-listed companies. In this case also, the price of issue of shares was by virtue of agreements as mutually agreed to between the parties. Thus, there is nothing perverse in the terms of the agreement or the premium charged by appellant from the venture capital fund, It is beyond the powers vested upon the AO to evaluate the price/premium in respect of the share issued as this is not the case of understatement of values shown by the appellant. Under the Act, it is only Sec. 55A of the Act which refers to valuation of assets by the Valuation Officer. Erstwhile section 16A of the Wealth Tax Act also places fetters on power of the ....