Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer (AO) while completing the assessment for AY 2015-16, valued shares of certain companies by marking up their work-in-progress or inventory value by 100% or 150%. The assessee claimed that the valuation should be as per Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) benefited the assessee by relying on a precedent where the book value of assets and liabilities was considered for share valuation. The department's argument that the AO was not given an opportunity to examine additional evidence was found to be of no consequence. The Tribunal found no substance in the grounds raised by the department on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the valuation of shares adopted by the Assessing Officer by marking up the work-in-progress or inventory value by 100% or 150% is justified, or whether the valuation as per Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 should be considered.
Sections Cited
56(2)(iia), 143(3), Rule 11UA, Rule 46A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, DELHI
Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 28.10.2024 of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi
P a g e | Gold Souk Finance Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2015-16) (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in DIN & Order No : ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069998832(1)arising out of the order dated 30.12.2017 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the ITO, Ward-12(4) for AY:
2015-16.
The assessee’s return was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer who had worked out the value of share of different investing companies by marking up 100% or 150% to the value of work-in-progress or inventory standing in the books of account of company whose shares were purchased by the assessee. The claim of assessee is that value of shares of companies whose shares were purchased by the assessee company is to be calculated as per Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rule 1962.
Before the First Appellate Authority assessee has succeeded as ld.
CIT(A) has deleted the addition made by Assessing Officer u/s 56(2)(iia) of the Act on account of difference in fair market value of shares of companies against purchase cost shown by the assessee.
P a g e | Gold Souk Finance Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2015-16) 4. The ld. DR and the department asserts that relief has been granted without verifying fair market value of shares submitted by assessee during appellate proceedings and ld. DR has relied the provisions of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules 1962 to submit that additional evidences were admitted without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine the fair market value of shares and reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Manish Buildwell (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT, 245 ITR 397 (2011),
However, before us Ld. AR has pointed out that the application under Rule 46A dated 09.09.2019 along with valuation report of equity shares of all relevant parties, under Rule 11UA of the Act were filed copy of which is at page 28 - 260 of the paper book and at page 264 copy of notice is filed wherein in the remand proceedings Assessing Officer had called by notice dated 11.11.2022 to submit all relevant documents. At page No. 265 copy of letter dated 30.11.2022 is filed whereby the valuation report of equity shares of all relevant parties were filed before the Assessing Officer.
As we appreciate the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) we find that though not specifically mentioned that additional evidences have been P a g e | Gold Souk Finance Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2015-16) admitted the ld. CIT(A) has benefitted the assessee primarily relying a decision in the case of Minda S. M. Technocast (P) Ltd. 92 Taxmann.com 29, for the proposition that while valuing the shares, the book value of the assets and liabilities should be taken into consideration holding that only 100% value can be considered, there by negating the AO’s erroneous conclusion that enhanced value of the immovable properties held by such companies by estimating an adhoc increase of 150% of such immovable property stating that the mark up is being done considering that the immovable properties are appreciating asset, should be considered. As with regard to this crucial legal aspect nothing comes forth from the department as to how that finding of ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable. Thus, the ground raised of not giving Assessing Officer any opportunity to rebut additional evidence is of no consequence and thus, ground as raised by the department on merits too have no substance. The appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 04.02.2026
Sd/- Sd/-s (Manish Agarwal) (Anubhav Sharma) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 04.02.2026
P a g e | Gold Souk Finance Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2015-16) Rohit, Sr. PS