2025 (3) TMI 605

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nue is in appeal before this Court for laying a challenge to the Tribunal's order dated 13.09.2022 with the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in deleting addition made under section 56 (2) (viib) of the Act amounting to Rs.33,71,77,500 towards share premium collected from closely held company which is contrary to the intention lying behind the introduction of the said provision to bring to tax the unaccounted income brought into books of account through unwarranted or unjustified share premium by Corporate entities"? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order is perverse in nature in del....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y is reflected in para 4 of Assessment Order dated 13.03.2016 which reads as under: "4. It is seen from the Balance Sheet of the assess that there is Rs.33,71,77,500 received as securities premium credited on share issue. AR was asked vide order sheet noting dated 19.01.2016 to furnish the details of share issued along with share premium. AR of the assessee vide submission dated 25.02.2016 furnished the details of shares issued along with share premium details. During the A.Y. 2013-14 company has allotted 2,04,35,000 equity shares of Rs.10 each at premium of Rs.165 per share. Company has allotted shares as under. Parties to whom share allotted No. of shares Face Value of Share Value of Premium/share M/s UKN Propertie....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e assessee under DCF method to arrive at the valuation and rejected the entire methodology as adopted by the assessee. It is also noticed that one of the reasons as quoted by the AO for not considering the valuation report is that the Director during the survey proceedings has stated that there is no valuation report. We are unable appreciate this reason for rejection as the satisfaction to be recorded by the AO should not be objective satisfaction exercised at his discretion, but a subjective satisfaction based on the facts of the case. The lower authorities have not examined the basis on which the valuation is done and from the perusal of facts, no details in this regard have been called for by the lower authorities. The valuation report ....