TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 300
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elected for regular scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 09.02.2022. In the course of scrutiny, the AO inter alia called for several details by issuing notice(s) u/s 142(1) of the Act. It is noted that, during the year, the assessee had purchased 5,92,41,134 shares of M/s IG3 Infra Limited (in short 'IG3') on 08.08.2020 at the rate of Rs. 12.43/- per share, viz., total consideration of Rs. 73,63,67,296/-. The assessee had also purchased 18,43,73,618 shares of M/s ETL Power Services Limited (in short 'ETL Power') at the rate of Rs. 14.30/- per share, which worked out to a total consideration of Rs. 263,65,42,737/-. Both these shares were purchased from M/s Green Grid Group Pte Ltd., Singapore (in short 'G3'). According to the AO, this transaction involving acquisition of shares from G3 qualified as an international transaction with an associated enterprise (AE) and therefore, made a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s 92CA(2) of the Act, after obtaining necessary approvals. 3. The TPO is noted to have called for several details and the assessee is found to have furnished their reply as well as objections to the validity of the transfer pricing p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 11UA was lower than the actual purchase price of the assessee and therefore no addition was warranted u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act. Later on, the assessee furnished another valuation report dated 09.12.2022 [hereinafter referred to as 'updated valuation report'] which was prepared on the basis of audited financial statements prepared for the valuation date 08.08.2020 viz., the date of transaction. In this updated valuation report, the FMV of IG3 shares & ETL Power shares as per Rule 11UA was re-stated at Rs. 11.989/- & Rs. 13.41/- respectively. Since the actual purchase price was comparatively higher than the corrected FMV of these shares, the assessee reiterated that, no addition was permissible u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act. The AO however is noted to have rejected the submissions put forth by the assessee and his reasons, as taken note of, is summarized below:- i. The assessee had originally relied on unaudited financial statements of M/s IG3 Infra Limited for share valuation, violating Rule 11UA r.w. Rule 11U, which mandates usage of audited balance sheet for valuation; ii. On 08.08.2020, the assessee purchased IG3 shares at Rs. 12.43 per share, whereas on 07.08.2020, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was the method prescribed in Rule 11UA and that no other method or rule or formula could have been applied by the assessee or the AO to ascertain the FMV. The assessee contended that, a third-party transaction viz., the price at which M/s Chidaatma Contractors Pvt. Ltd. purchased the shares of IG3 from M/s Vistra ITCL India Ltd. could not be adopted as FMV for the purposes of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act as the same was not in accordance with the prescribed Rule 11UA. The assessee is noted to have explained that, as long as the purchase price for a property paid by the assessee or for that matter any third person, is higher than the FMV computed as per Rule 11UA in respect of such property, no adverse inference can be legally drawn in terms of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, even if the third person had transacted the same property at a price different/higher than the price paid by the assessee. It was additionally pointed out that, the price negotiated and paid by M/s Chidaatma Contractors Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Vistra ITCL India Ltd. was pursuant to an extra ordinary situation viz., for withdrawing pending litigation in Court and therefore, even otherwise the said price, according to the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....determining FMV of an unlisted equity share, the respective equity shares must be valued based on audited financial statements as on the date of share transfer itself. 9.79 The undersigned concurs with the appellant's argument that while Rule 11UA, read in conjunction with Rule 11U, which clearly stipulates that the valuation of shares in an unlisted company must be based on audited financial statements as on the date of the share transfer, it may not always be practically feasible to comply with this requirement at the time of the transfer. This is primarily because that the share transfer if occurs at any time in between the financial year, the same may not synchronize with the regular year end closing balance sheet date. In such cases, the audited financials for the relevant period may not yet be readily available. Consequently, relying solely on unaudited financial statements or interim reports at the time of the transfer may be necessary to conduct the valuation in the first instance. Such circumstances are not unusual, particularly in cases where the share transfer occurs at a date other than the year end closing date, and the company has not yet completed the au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d valuation report comprised of the correct number of paid-up equity shares (including the already converted preference shares) which was in accordance with Rule 11UA(1)(c). In support, the assessee is noted to have furnished the audited financials of investee companies in support of the same, along with relevant copies of Board Resolutions, Form PAS-3 etc. The Ld. CIT(A) is noted to have called for specific comments of the AO on this aspect. The relevant questions put up by the Ld. CIT(A) and the comments given by the AO are noted to be as under:- "CIT(A): "3. With regard to the inconsistency in the valuation report pointed out at point (a) at Page No.23 of the assessment order, the appellant stated that the preference shares have been converted into equity shares before the date of drawing the audited financial statements as on 08.08.2020. The AO is requested to furnish his comments with regard to the same." AO Comments: The company M/s IG3 Infra Ltd. has converted the preference shares into equity shares of M/s IG3 Infra Ltd. and the Ld. CIT(A) has asked to verify the same. The assessee was asked to submit the proof for the conversion of preference shares into ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....one would lead to a material reduction in the FMV. Additionally, it would have a cascading effect, substantially lowering the FMV of ETL Power shares. Had the AO considered the updated valuation report, this discrepancy would not have arisen. In light of the above, the undersigned concludes that there is no inflation in the denominator used the appellant for computing the FMV of the shares." 11. Likewise, the Ld. CIT(A) is found to have individually examined the alleged inconsistencies in the valuation of other assets & liabilities as mentioned by the AO in the impugned order and concluded that, the assessee had rightly computed the fair values of these assets & liabilities in their updated valuation report, which was in accordance with the methodology laid down in Rule 11UA(1)(c) of the Rules. 12. The next aspect examined by the Ld. CIT(A) was the AO's reliance on the third-party purchase price of Rs. 29.48/share paid by M/s Chidaatma Contractors Pvt. Ltd. for acquiring shares of IG3 from ILFS Realty Fund C/o Vistra ITCL India Ltd, to benchmark the FMV value of the assessee' acquisition of same shares, for the purposes of application of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. It is not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....held that, the FMV of Rs. 11.989/- as computed in the updated valuation report of the assessee was in accordance with Rule 11UA and therefore he held that the purchase price of Rs. 12.43/share paid for IG3 shares by the assessee was adequate. 13. Consequentially, the Ld. CIT(A) held that, as a cascading effect, the FMV of IG3 shares, to be adopted for valuing the FMV of ETL Power shares [which held shares of IG3], was to be Rs. 11.989/- and not Rs. 29.48/- as adopted by the AO. Resultantly, the FMV of ETL Power shares, as per Rule 11UA, stood reduced to Rs. 13.41/- per share as opposed to Rs. 53.95/- per share, as computed by the AO. The Ld. CIT(A) accordingly held that, the assessee's purchase price of ETL Power shares of Rs. 14.30/share was also adequate and higher than its FMV. The Ld. CIT(A) thus held that, since the price paid for purchase of both the shares were higher than their respective FMVs, the addition made by the AO u/s 56(2)(x) was impermissible and thus was directed to be deleted. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before us. 14. Assailing the action of the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT, DR appearing for the Revenue vehemently support....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Income Tax Rules, 1962 and whether the purchase price paid by the assessee was commensurate with such fair market valuation or not? It is observed from the orders of the lower authorities that, the assessee had acquired shares of two Indian companies, IG3 and ETL Power, from a foreign company G3, Singapore at price of Rs. 12.43/share and Rs. 14.30/share respectively. It is observed that, the principal dispute relates to the valuation of IG3 shares, as the underlying valuation of ETL Power shares is dependent on the FMV of IG3 shares, because the latter shares are the major asset held by ETL Power. As noted above, the assessee had furnished original valuation report in which IG3 and ETL Power shares were valued at Rs. 12.125/- & Rs. 13.67/- and later on an updated valuation report was obtained on 09.12.2022, according to which, the FMV of IG3 and ETL Power shares was Rs. 11.989/- & Rs. 13.41/- respectively. It is observed that, the original valuation report dated 06.07.2020 was based on the unaudited financials as on 31.03.2020 and therefore there is no quarrel between the parties that this particular report was not in accordance with Rule 11U read with 11UA of the Income Tax Rul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (ii) in any other case,- (A) in relation to an Indian company, the balance sheet of such company (including the notes annexed thereto and forming part of the accounts) as drawn up on the valuation date which has been audited by the auditor of the company appointed under the laws relating to companies in force; and (B) in relation to a company, not being an Indian company, the balance sheet of the company (including the notes annexed thereto and forming part of the accounts) as drawn up on the valuation date which has been audited by the auditor of the company, if any, appointed under the laws in force of the country in which the company is registered or incorporated;]] (j) "valuation date" means the date on which the property or consideration, as the case may be, is received by the assessee. Rule 11UA (1) For the purposes of section 56 of the Act, the fair market value of a property, other than immovable property, shall be determined in the following manner, namely,- (c) valuation of shares and securities,- b) the fair market value of unquoted equity shares shall be the value, on the valuation date, of such un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sub-rule (1):- (A) the fair market value of unquoted equity shares for the purposes of sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of the Explanation to clause (viib) of subsection (2) of section 56 shall be the value, on the valuation date, of such unquoted equity shares, as shall be determined under sub-clause (a), sub-clause (b), sub-clause (c) or sub-clause (e), at the option of the assessee, where the consideration received by the assessee is from a resident ; and under sub-clauses (a) to (e) at the option of the assessee, where the consideration received by the assessee is from a non-resident, in the following manner:-......"[Emphasis given by us] 16. The law is noted to stipulate that, where any property including any shares is received by any person for inadequate consideration, then the difference between the fair market value and the purchase price, is to be brought to tax by way of income from other sources u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act. It is seen that, the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) come into play only where the purchase price is lesser than the FMV and therefore, if the purchase price is equal or higher, the said provision has no implication. It is noted from Rule 11UA(1) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., and therefore the same is found to be in accordance with the prescribed Rules, as discussed above. We thus countenance the Ld. CIT(A)'s findings admitting and accepting this updated valuation report because what the provision requires [i.e. conjoint reading of relevant provisions contained in Section 56 or Rule 11U or Rule 11UA] is only to ascertain that, the transacted price/consideration between the parties should not be lower than the FMV prevailing on the valuation date, which is to be computed in terms of prescribed Rule 11UA. We agree with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) that, the date of transfer/receipt of shares may not coincide with the closing balance sheet date i.e. 31st March and it may happen on any date and therefore it is practically impossible to draw up and get the balance sheet audited immediately at the time of such transaction. Though the transaction may be negotiated/undertaken between the parties based on the unaudited results available then, but in terms of the intention of the Rule, the assessee, when called upon, is required to demonstrate the fairness of their actual consideration on the basis of valuation derived from the audited balance sheet drawn up ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ations of the Assessing Officer regarding valuation report. The Assessing Officer never stated that assessee has not filed valuation report in support of fair market value of shares. In fact, Assessing Officer has categorically admitted that assessee has filed valuation report from independent Chartered Accountant as well as statutory auditor of Assessee Company. But, he has ignored valuation report filed by assessee only for the reason that such reports were not filed during original assessment proceedings or even during revision proceedings. We have gone through reasons given by the Assessing Officer for rejection of valuation report and we do not ourselves subscribe to the findings recorded by Assessing Officer, because he cannot reject valuation report merely for the reason such valuation report was not filed at the time of assessment proceedings. Further, timing of filing valuation report at the time of original assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) or during revision proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act is not a relevant criteria to decide whether fair market value of shares issued by assessee is substantiated to the satisfaction of Assessing Officer or not. But, what is relevant is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (256 taxman 240) wherein it was held that the AO can scrutinize the valuation report and he can determine a fresh valuation either by himself or by calling a final determination from an independent valuer to confront the assessee, but he cannot change the method of valuation which has been adopted by the assessee. The relevant para 9 of this judgment is reproduced below: "9. We note that, the Commissioner of Income-Tax in the impugned order dated 23rd February, 2018 does not deal with the primary grievance of the petitioner. This, even after he concedes with the method of valuation namely, NAV Method or the DCF Method to determine the fair market value of shares has to be done/adopted at the Assessee's option. Nevertheless, he does not deal with the change in the method of valuation by the Assessing Officer which has resulted in the demand. There is certainly no immunity from scrutiny of the valuation report submitted by the Assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is undoubtedly entitled to scrutinise the valuation report and determine a fresh valuation either by himself or by calling for a final determination from an independent valuer to confront the petitioner. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Revenue, this purchase price reflected the true FMV of the IG3 shares. Since purchase price of Rs. 12.43/share paid by the assessee was inadequate with reference to the aforesaid value of Rs. 29.48/share, it was claimed before us that, the AO had rightly made the addition u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act. We however are unable to subscribe to this contention of the Revenue. What the Revenue is seeking to do is to adopt the price at which a third person transacted in IG3 shares as an arm's length comparable to benchmark the assessee's transaction for the purposes of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. This act of the Revenue is however found to be unjustified in as much as the same is contrary to the express provisions of law, as already discussed earlier. Section 56(2)(x) of the Act doesn't provide that, the FMV of the property received is to be valued at the price which it fetches in the open market or the arm's length price determined in terms of Section 92 of the Act or to be benchmarked against a price transacted between unrelated parties. Rather, the provisions are unambiguously clear that, the FMV is to be computed in the manner as laid down in the prescribed Rule 11UA and there is no other....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that, had any third party transacted in the same shares at a value which was otherwise lower than the fair value as per Rule 11UA, then would the Revenue have adopted such third party price as the comparable price for the purposes of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, ignoring the value as per Rule 11UA. The Ld. CIT, DR was unable to answer this query. Hence, if any transacted price, lower than FMV as per Rule 11UA, is not acceptable to Revenue, then likewise the transacted price, which is higher than FMV as per Rule 11UA, also cannot be used for the purposes of application of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. We thus countenance the following findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) rejecting the usage of the actual price paid by M/s Chidaatma Contractors P Ltd to buy IG3 shares from ILFS Realty Fund as FMV for the purposes of application of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, in the present case. "9.96 The undersigned has carefully considered the issue in hand. Prima facie, the undersigned observes that there is no separate valuation report supporting the purchase price of Rs. 29.48 per share paid by M/s. Chidaatma Contractors Pvt. Ltd to ILFS Realty Fund (Vistra ITCL). The only valuation repo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to determine the FMV for the purpose of invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. Thus, the comparison of the price(s) paid by M/s. Chidaatma Contractors Pvt. Ltd to Vistra ITCL with the purchase price paid by the appellant per share is not correct. Accordingly, the undersigned is of the view that the action of the AO in comparing the purchase price of Rs. 29.48 per share paid by M/s. Chidaatma Contractors Pvt. Ltd with that of the purchase price of Rs. 12.43 per share paid by the appellant is not justified and the AO is directed to delete the additions made u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act." 26. Now we come to the veracity of the FMV of Rs. 11.989/share ascertained in the updated valuation report in terms of Rule 11UA(1)(c). As already noted above, the major difference in the FMV determined by the AO vis-à-vis the FMV as per the updated valuation report was due to the dispute relating to the denominator in the computation of FMV. In terms of Rule 11UA, the net value of assets & liabilities, as determined in the manner prescribed therein, was to be divided by the number of paid up equity shares of the company as on the valuation date. According to AO, the assessee ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ified that the amount of Rs. 70 crores represent an advance towards the acquisition of land, and that the appellant does not hold ownership of the land. Consequently, the question of applying stamp duty valuation to the said land advance does not arise. As such, these advances are classified as other assets, with the book value of the land advance being considered for the purpose of the Rule 11UA valuation. Furthermore, the AO in the remand report has acknowledged and accepted the appellant's submission. Therefore, the undersigned is of the view that that the adoption of the Rs. 70 crores value in the valuation report is well-founded and justified. 28. As noted by the Ld CIT(A), the AO in the remand report had acknowledged and accepted the assessee's submission that the sum of Rs 70 crores represented advance towards land and that the company didn't have ownership over the said land and therefore, the value of advance was rightly adopted by Ld CIT(A) at the book value by observing that, the impugned advance paid could be treated as 'other assets' and be therefore considered at book value, and the Ld. CIT(A) also countenanced the adoption of Rs. 70 crores as the value of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... support of its claim, submitted the required registered valuer's report and the guideline values for all the lands and buildings, which formed the basis for the updated valuation report. The AO, in the remand report, after thoroughly reviewing the additional evidence provided by the Appellant, acknowledged that the Appellant had appropriately adopted the guideline values for the Chennai land and building, in line with Rule 11UA of the Rules. After carefully considering the additional evidence, the Appellant's written submissions, the AO's remand report, and the rejoinder, the undersigned concludes that the updated valuation of the land and buildings is well-supported and merits consideration. Consequently, the AO's objections on this matter are found to be devoid of merits." 30. The last specie of asset in dispute was regarding the valuation of investments in unquoted shares and securities held by IG3. It is noticed that Rule 11UA(1)(c) provides for a specific mechanism to value the shares and securities which is stated to be fair market value of shares and securities as determined in the manner provided in this Rule. In our considered view therefore, the shares and securities ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....while determining the FMV of unquoted equity shares. The appellant's contention-drawing a parallel with the provisions of Rule 11UAE and relying on case law rendered in the context of Section 50B of the Act-is well-founded. It is a well-settled legal principle that taxation laws must be interpreted with precision and strict adherence to their language, leaving no scope for presumptions, assumptions, or interpretative liberties. i) The principles governing the interpretation of taxation statutes have been authoritatively laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs. Dilip Kumar and Company and Others [(2018) 9 SCC 1]. The Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that in taxation statutes, neither contextual nor purposive interpretation can be applied, nor can external materials be relied upon to discern intent. The statute must be interpreted based solely on its plain and clear language, with no room for intendment, presumptions, or equity. Only the explicit wording of the law should guide its application, and nothing should be added, inferred, or implied unless absolutely necessary for its ope....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unambiguous language contained in Clause 'C' of Rule 11UA(1)(c)(b) and applied the formula prescribed therein to value the unquoted investments. He showed us that, there was no such sub-rule or sub-clause contained in the formula, in terms of which, in case there was a negative resultant figure, then the same is to be ignored or be substituted with the face value of unquoted investments. Having considered the submissions of the Ld. AR and the views expressed by the Ld. CIT(A), in our considered opinion, the plain reading of the impugned rule indeed does not reveal any manner or calculation for excluding or adjusting the negative value, which is arrived at while applying the prescribed formula, and therefore, the view expressed by the Ld. CIT(A) is found to be plausible one. 32. The Ld. CIT, DR however insisted that, though, there was no such exclusion or adjustment provided in the Rule, but where the application of the formula yielded a negative value, the Tribunal ought to give an equitable consideration on this aspect and logically adopt the FMV of such unquoted investments at NIL. The Ld. AR, on the other hand, submitted that there is no presumption in tax laws and nothing is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....worth was to be added while computing the capital gain or was the net worth presumed to be NIL (since negative). It is observed that the Tribunal took note of the formula prescribed for calculating 'net-worth' which was 'all assets minus all liabilities of the undertaking'. Having regard to the express language used in the provisions of Section 50B, it was therefore held that the calculation methodology implies that whatever be the networth, i.e. positive or negative, will have to be adopted accordingly. The Tribunal thus upheld the contention of the Revenue and it was decided that the negative value was to be adopted. This view is noted to have been endorsed by the Bangalore bench of this Tribunal in the case of Medi Assist Insurance TPA Private Limited vs. DCIT (139 taxmann.com 162). According to us, these decisions (supra) supports the Ld. CIT(A)'s view that, the negative values when derived through prescribed methods, cannot be ignored. Overall therefore, we are unable to find any infirmity in the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) concerning the valuation of unquoted investments held by IG3. 34. The Ld. AR in the alternate, pointed out that if the Revenue intended to expand or impo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had rightly excluded the said liabilities from the value of total liabilities for the purposes of valuation, which resultantly would increase the net- worth/FMV of the IG3 shares. Though no such amount was found to be set-aside for payment of dividend from the face of the audited financials dated 08.08.2020, it was pointed out to us by the Ld. CIT, DR that, the assessee had given advances aggregating to Rs. 337.24 crores to M5 companies, out of which Rs. 257.62 crores had been taxed in the hands of the latter as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act and therefore the AO had rightly deemed such amount having been set aside for payment of dividends. The Ld. AR, on the other hand, firstly brought to our notice that, the addition(s) made in the hands of M5 companies by way of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act had been deleted by the appellate authorities including the Ld. CIT(A) and this Tribunal and therefore the foundational premise of the AO's action stood vacated. Upon enquiry by the Bench, the Ld. CIT, DR was unable to counter the same and he fairly stated that the decision of this Tribunal deleting the addition(s) made by way of deemed dividend in the hands of M5 compani....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wer, but the same would not change its character in the audited books of the assessee or the borrowing companies. We agree with the assessee that, if it is so held then, correspondingly such loan asset being in the nature of 'dividend' paid/set apart to M5 companies cannot be included in the fair valuation of total assets as well. In our considered view, the income-tax deeming fiction treating such loan(s) as deemed dividend in hands of the borrower companies cannot be extended beyond Section 2(22) and be said to constitute "amount set apart for payment of dividends on preference shares and equity shares where such dividends have not been declared before the date of transfer at a general body meeting of the company", for the purposes of Rule 11UA. In our considered view, the term "amount set apart for payment of dividend" is meant to include the liability provided by the Board of Directors in the books of the company towards payment of dividend to the shareholders, which is subject to approval at the Annual General Meeting. The loan(s) granted to other companies cannot be considered as amount set apart as dividend(s), having regard to the language used in Rule 11UA(1)(c). 38. Ov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot being separately adjudicated upon and is left open. 42. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stand dismissed and the Cross-Objection of the assessee being infructuous is also dismissed Order pronounced on the 29th day of July, 2025, in Chennai. ============= Document 1 B) Mukesh Manish & Kalpesh Chartered Accountants One, 7th Floor, Egmore, Chennai 600 008 Tel +91 44 4263 9000 m2k.co.in Valuation report under Rule 11UA of IG3 Infra Limited "7 December 2022 1. Background IG3 Infra Limited ('IG3' or 'the Company') is a public limited company domiciled in India and incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The Company is engaged in development and provision of Infrastructure facilities, including Special Economic Zones. The Company has developed an Information Technology Special Economic Zone (IT SEZ) - "Chennai One" in Chennai with a total leasable commercial space of 3.7 million sq. ft in various phases. The Company completed the first phase of the IT SEZ on a land area of 7.86 acres with leasable area of 1.05 million sq. ft. in on sq. ft. in FY2007. The North Block of the second phase, on a land area of 12.84 acres, got commer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... report provided by the Registered valuer for the Chennai la gement in cacher valuer for the Chennai land and the guideline values provided by the management in case of other land parcels and is as follows: S No. Location of Land Area Unit Extent Stamp Duty Value (Rs.) Ref. 1 Chennai (Chennai One) Acre 6.240 b(a) Acre 14.455 6(a) 20.695 |2,296,072,647 2 |Perundurai Acre 256.429| -126.424.492 6(b) 126.424.492 Akkalenahalli and Mallenahalli of Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore Rural Acre 21.000 441.000.000 6(b) Akkalenahalli and Mallenahalli Rural of Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore 479,325,000 6(b) 43.825 920,325,000 Hanumanthai Village, hengalpet Acre 94.7 446.785.614 6(b) Hanumanthai Village, Chengalpet Acre 6.18 28,984,200 6(b) Hanumanthai Village, Chengalpet Acre 3.1 36,423,13 6(b) Kunnavakkam Village, Chengalpet Acre 26.825 127,285,260 6(b) Acre 130.83 639,478,20 Total 3,982,300,34 Hanumanthai Village, Chengalpet Hanumanthai Village, Chengalpet Kunnavakkam Village, Chengalpet The stamp duty value of the Chennal Land has also been certified by the registered valuer and we have relied upon the said report fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s "power plant" and therefore, the civil construction portion of plant should be considered as plant and machinery and not as immoveable property. Accordingly, the under constructed power plant has not been considered as an Immoveable Property (Building) for the purpose of this valuation but as a plant & machinery (tangible fixed assets) of the Company. The details of fair market value of investment in shares and securities by the Company are as follows: Company No. of Shares MV per share (Rs.) Total Amount (RG) Note Ref Buildkorp Engineers (India) Private 4.000 511.95 20,47,800 5(a) The Great Indian Linen & Textile Infrastructure Co. (P) Ltd 39,97,500 10.18 4,06,94,550 5(a) Grand Luxe Hotels Limited 2,50,00,000 (6.746) (16,86,50,000 5(a) Green Grid Power (India) Limited 2,50,000 (246.58) (6,16,45,000) 5(a) ETL Corporate Services Private Limited 2,50,000 (477.86) (11,94,65,000) 5(a) ETL Secure Space Limited 2,50,00 7.2 18,20,000 5(a) Weavers Harvest (India) Private .. 2,50,000 (921.10 (23,02,75,000) 5(a) Coimbatore City Infra Services (P) 10,000 1,00,000 5(b) Total (53,53,72,650) The FMV per shares of the respective subsidiary and associate co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esen 80IAB of the Act and issued a demand of Rs. 13,87,47,186 for AY 2012-13 and Rs. 13,36,11,275 for AY 2013-14, after adjusting refund claimed in the return of income amounting to Rs. 1,35,57,243 and Rs. 6,80,49,905 for the respective years. Further, the demand ar en adiusted with the refunds 29.15.44 after the demand amount has been adjusted with the refunds of Rs. 14,29,15,944 pertaining to other assessment years. The Management of the Company is and the Carcompany is confident that the claim of the Company w.r.t 80IAB will be fully allowed and the Company would receive the full amount of refunds which has been adjusted by the department. Accordingly, in view of the a rdingly, in view of the above representation, the said amounts have the department. been considered as refund receivable by the Company, 105 Chennai-8. Private and Confidential Page 7 of 10 Mukesh Manish & Kalpesh Chartered Accountants ure 2: Workings for valuation of shares as per Rule 11UA(1)(c)(b) of the Rules s. Particulars Note Amount (Rs. Amount (Rs.) Total Assets as per Balance Sheet 1 29,446,340,951 Less: Amount of Tax / Advance Tax Paid including MAT Credit 565,751,916 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....untants Annexure 1: Balance Sheet of IG3 as at 8 August 2020 (Amount in Rs. Lakhs) Particulars As at 8 August 2020 Audited I. ASSETS (1) Non-Current Assets (a) Property, plant and equipment 153,018.89 (b) Capital work-in-progress 38,390.16 (c) Financial assets (i) Investments 2,761.30 (il) Trade Receivables (iii) Loans 44,301.21 (iv) Others 2.2 (d) Non-current tax assets 31-04 (e) Other non-current assets 39,426.76 Total Non-Current Assets 281,051.41 (2) Current Assets (a) Financial assets i Trade receivable (i) Trade receivables 1,784.55 (il) Cash and cash equivalents 3,387.49 (iii) Other Bank balances 5,219.28 (IV) Other Financial 99.45 (b) Other current assets 2,921.23 Total Current Assets 13,412.00 TOTAL ASSETS 294,463.41 II. EQUITY AND LIABILITIES (1) Equity (a) Equity Share capital 52,733.99 (b) Convertible non-participating preference share capital (c) Other equity 34,109.18 Total Equity 86,843.17 (2) Non-Current Liabilities (a) Financial Liabilities (i) Borrowings His 185,757.99 Trade navah (ii) Trade payables 355.11 (iii) Other financial liabilities 13,929.07 (b) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (vi) any amount representing contingent liabilities other than arrears of dividends payable in respect of cumulative n respect of cumulative preference shares; PV = the paid up value of such equity shares; PE = total amount of paid up equity share capital as shown in the balance-sheet; 4. Valuation Date As per the provisions of the Act (i.e. section 50CA and Section 56(2) read with Rule 11U), the valuation date for the purpose of Rule 11UA shall be the date on which the property is transferred. In other words, the valuation date shall be the date of transfer of shares. Further, Rule 11U(b)(ii) provides that ses of valuation, the balance sheet should shares alance sheet should be drawn up on the valuation to be audited by the auditor appointed under section 224 of the Companies Act, 1956 (i.e. section 139 of Companies Act, 2013). We have been informed that the valuation date for the purpose of Rule 11UA valuation shall be taken as 8 August 2020. We have provided our valuation report based on the audited balance sheet of the Company. 5. Source of information We have primarily relied on the following information/ documents: Company's audited financial....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able property) in the balance-sheet as reduced by, any amount of income-tax paid, if any, less the amount of income-tax refund claimed, if any; and (il) any amount shown as asset including the unamortised amount of deferred expenditure which does not represent the value of any asset; B = the price which the jewellery and artistic work would fetch if sold in the open market on the basis of the valuation report obtained from a registered valuer; C = fair market value of shares and securities as determined in the manner provided in this rule; D = the value adopted or assessed or assessable by any authority of the Government for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of the immovable property; L = book value of liabilities shown in the balance sheet, but not including the following amounts, namely :- (i) the paid-up capital in respect of equity shares; ) the amount set apart for payment of dividends on preference shares and equity shares where such dividends have not been declared before the date of transfer at a general body meeting of the company; (iii) reserves and surplus, by whatever n whatever name called, even if the resulting figure is neg....