2018 (2) TMI 1985

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Revenue. The Revenue has filed a petition for condonation of delay. We have heard the Ld. Departmental Representative and the Ld. representative for the assessee. We find that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal before the stipulated time. Therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. Shri Vijay Kumar Punna, the Ld. Jr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the only issue arises for consideration is deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer to the extent of Rs.59,04,31,082/- under Section 28(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). According to the Ld. Jr. Standing Counsel, during the assessment year under consideration, the assessee sold 2,82,50,291 equity shares of M....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... shares were allotted to the assessee. According to the Ld. representative, the shares were held as investment by the assessee from the date of purchase. M/s Tube Investments of India Ltd. offered to purchase the equity shares of M/s Shanthi Gears Limited from the assessee. According to the Ld. representative, the assessee valued the shares by an independent valuer at Rs.81/- per share and the same was also approved by Security Exchange Board of India. The assessee offered the shares at the rate of Rs.81/- per share to all the shareholders in accordance with Regulations 3(1) and 4 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India. According to the Ld. representative, the purchaser agreed to purchase at the rate of Rs.81/- per share from all the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Ld. representative further submitted that when a large stock of shares were transferred to another company, the purchaser company is taking control over the company, therefore, the market price will always be little over than the price quoted in the Stock Exchange. In this case, according to the Ld. representative, the assessee was admittedly holding 34.57% of shares, therefore, the purchaser company took over the administration of the company. Hence, according to the Ld. representative, the Assessing Officer is not justified in considering the price received by the assessee over and above the market price towards non-compete fee. Moreover, according to the Ld. representative, not only to the assessee, to other parties also the purchaser ....