DEEP JYOTI WAX TRADERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee had the option to determine the FMV of shares as per Rule 11UA(2)(a) or (b). Since the assessee opted for the DCF method under Rule 11UA(2)(b), the AO's determination under Rule 11UA(2)(a) was not justified.
What were the facts?
The assessee company issued shares at a premium. The Assessing Officer (AO) added the difference between the issue price and the fair market value (FMV) determined by the AO, treating it as income under Section 56(2)(viib). The assessee had obtained an FMV report from a chartered accountant using the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method.
What were the issues?
Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in re-determining the fair market value of shares when the assessee had opted for a specific method prescribed under the rules, and whether the addition made under Section 56(2)(viib) was sustainable.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad
order : July 10, 2023 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य �वारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 07.11.2022 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).
The sole issue raised by the assessee is relating to the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.1,16,65,600/- u/s 56(2) of the Act on account of excess share premium received by the assessee as compared to the fair market value of the shares.
The assessee during the year issued 920000 shares @10/- each and further of Rs.40/- each raising total share capital including share Assessment year: 2014-15 Deep Jyoti Wax Traders Pvt. Ltd premium of Rs.46000000/- The Assessing Officer however determined the fair market price of the shares issued by the assessee at Rs.27.3/- per share and he further observed that the assessee had issued shares @ Rs.40/-. He added the differential amount of Rs.11665600/- u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act. As per the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, the fair market value of the shares can be determined in the following manner:
(a) the fair market value of the shares shall be the value – (i) as may be determined in accordance with such method as may be prescribed, or (ii) as may be substantiated by the company to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, based on the value, on the date of issue of shares, of its assets, including intangible assets being goodwill, know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, Whichever is higher;
The case of the assessee is that the fair market value of the shares was determined by the method prescribed under Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules 1962. The relevant part of which is reproduced as under: “[(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-clause (b) of clause (c) of sub-rule (1), the fair market value of unquoted equity shares for the purposes of sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of Explanation to clause (viib) of sub-section (2) of section 56 shall be the value, on the valuation date, of such unquoted equity shares as determined in the following manner under clause (a) or clause (b), at the option of the assessee, namely:— (A–L) × (a) the fair market value of unquoted equity shares = (PV), (PE) where, A = book value of the assets in the balance-sheet as reduced by any amount of tax paid as deduction or collection at source or as advance tax payment as reduced by the amount of tax claimed as refund under the Income-tax Act and any amount shown in the balance-sheet as Assessment year: 2014-15 Deep Jyoti Wax Traders Pvt. Ltd asset including the unamortised amount of deferred expenditure which does not represent the value of any asset; 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; (ii) 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 name called, even if the resulting figure is negative, other than those set apart towards depreciation; (iv) any amount representing provision for taxation, other than amount of tax paid as deduction or collection at source or as advance tax payment as reduced by the amount of tax claimed as refund under the Income-tax Act, to the extent of the excess over the tax payable with reference to the book profits in accordance with the law applicable thereto; (v) any amount representing provisions made for meeting liabilities, other than ascertained liabilities; (vi) any amount representing contingent liabilities other than arrears of dividends payable in respect of cumulative preference shares; PE = total amount of paid up equity share capital as shown in the balance-sheet; PV = the paid up value of such equity shares; or (b) the fair market value of the unquoted equity shares determined by a merchant banker or an accountant as per the Discounted Free Cash Flow method.]”
It is pertinent to mention here that as per the relevant rules as applicable for assessment year under consideration i.e. 2014-15, it was at the option of the assessee to get the fair market value of the share determined from a merchant banker or an accountant as per the Discounted Free Cash Flow Method. The ld. counsel for the assessee has produced on record a report of S. K. Vyas & Associates, C.A., who have calculated the fair market value of the shares at Rs.50/- per share as per Discounted Cash Flow Method. A perusal of the order of the Assessing
More judgments on Section 56(2)(viib)
- M/S Namdev Finvest Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-1, JaipurITA 1255/JPR/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Payswiff Technologies Private Limited… vs DCIT, Circle-5(1), HyderabadITA 131/HYD/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
- Radison Estates Private Limited, Bangalore vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle…ITA 519/BANG/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- Income Tax Officer - 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs Coolberg Beverages Pvt Ltd, MumbaiITA 4286/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Medwell Ventures Private Limited, Delhi vs The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 1775/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026