TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 357
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') relating to assessment year 2015-16. 2. The registry has noted that there is a delay of 432 days in filing the above appeal by the assessee. The assessee explained that the impugned revision order was passed on 08-03-2021 during pick Covid-19 Pandemic period. So, the relevant paper could not be followed up and the appeal filed on 13-07-2022 with delay of 432 days. However Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021, held that period of limitation expired during the period from 15-03- 2020 till 28-02-2022 were extended with a limitation of 90 days from 01-03-2022. Applying the above ratio of the judgement, the delay is to be only 44 days and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce between the aggregate consideration received and the fair market value of the shares becomes taxable in the hands of such company. It is undisputed fact that the assessee company has received consideration worth Rs. 42,65,55,955/- which exceeded the face value of shares issued of Rs. 41,50,00,200/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer failed to examine the fair market value of the shares in accordance with Rule 11U and Rule 11 UA of the IT Rules. Further, the assessee company claimed to have converted the loan of Country Club Pvt. Ltd. into equity by issuing 4,15,00,200 shares to Ms Country Club Hospitability and Holidays Ltd. However on examination of the balance sheet, it appears that no such loan was appearing in the books as on 31-03-2014. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mit for passing the order u/s 263 of the Act in the appellant's case for the assessment year under consideration has expired on 31.03.2020 itself. 5. Without prejudice to ground nos. 1 to 4, the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in holding in para 2 of his order that the Assessing Officer had failed to examine the aspect of applicability of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 6. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in appreciating the fact of furnishing of all details relating to the issue in question by the appellant before the Assessing Officer, as observed by the Assessing Officer vide para no.2 of the assessment order. 7. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. Pr. CIT ought to have appreciated that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not applicable in the present case of the assessee, since the transfer of shares was done between the holding and the subsidiary company, thus PCIT has erred in invoking revision proceedings without considering the facts of the present case. The assessee company is wholly owned subsidiary of M/s Country Club Hospitality and Holidays Ltd. [herein after referred as M/s.CCHHL] during the relevant financial year 2014-15 and relevant extract of the annual report for the financial year 2014-15 of M/s.CCHHL were filed before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Thus, PCIT failed to consider that the subsidiary company of public listed companies are not considered to be privately held or closely held company (even though they th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mited during the relevant Financial year 2014-15 and Assessee company has issued shares to its holding company namely M/s. Country Club India Ltd at face value of Rs. 10 each thus there is increase in share capital in the assessment year under consideration. Further copy of the extract of Annual Report for FY 2014-15 of M/s. Country Club Hospitality and Holidays Limited [formerly known as M/s. Country Club India Ltd] enclosed for ready reference. 7.2. After considering the above reply filed by the assessee company, Ld AO passed the assessment order accepting the returned loss claimed by the Assessee. The Ld AO considered the allotment of shares between the holding and subsidiary companies at a face value of Rs. 10 and without there being....