TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1985X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the company. Moreover, ₹81/- per share was not only paid to the assessee but also to third party general public. Therefore, it cannot be said that ₹10/- per share was excessively received by the assessee over and above the market rate quoted in the Stock Exchange as non-compete fee. When the price fixed by the Stock Exchange for a single share was ₹71/- and the assessee was selling 2,82,50,291 equity shares whereby the controlling interest in the company stands transferred, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that there cannot be any presumption that the price received by the assessee over and above the price quoted in the Stock Exchange is for non-compete fee. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly deleted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,10,93,480/-. According to the Ld. Jr. Standing Counsel, the assessee also claimed deduction of ₹1,94,29,655/- under Section 54F of the Act. The assessee further claimed deduction under Section 54EC of the Act to the extent of ₹50,00,000/-. According to the Ld. Jr. Standing Counsel, the Assessing Officer found that the share purchase agreement discloses the sale of shares at ₹81/- per share to M/s Tube Investments of India Limited. There was a clause for non-compete and also not to use the trademark of the company, therefore, the Assessing Officer found that the excess amount received by the assessee, over and above the market value of shares, was treated as business income under Section 28(va) of the Act. According to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be Investment of India paid ₹81/- per share not only to the assessee but also to all the third party shareholders. Therefore, according to the Ld. representative, the allegation that the assessee has received non-compete fee over and above the market rate is not justified. 5. Referring to market rate, the Ld. representative for the assessee submitted that as on 03.09.2012, the market rate quoted in the Stock Exchange was ₹71/- per share. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was confused that the assessee has received excess payment of ₹10/- per share which needs to be treated as non-compete fee. According to the Ld. representative, the rate quoted in the Stock Exchange are influenced by various factors. According to the Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rate of ₹81/- per share, cannot be treated as non-compete fee. Therefore, according to the Ld. representative, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee. 7. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The assessee sold 2,82,50,291 equity shares of M/s Shanthi Gears Limited to M/s Tube Investment of India at the rate of ₹81/- per share. The market rate in the Stock Exchange on the date of sale was ₹71/- per share. Therefore, the excess price of ₹10/- per share received by the assessee was treated as non-compete fee by the Assessing Officer. The assessee got the shares valued by an independent valuer. The agreement for purchase o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
