Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2015 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 831 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment - nature of share application money received (the intrinsic value of the share in comparison to the excess premium received) is not substantiated by any cogent evidence as could be noticed from records - Held that:- The transaction seems to be entirely an Arms-length transaction. The subscribers are limited companies who are reportedly stated to be public limited companies. The Petitioner is a company in the hospitality sector and we do not see how the amount of premium that has been charged from the subscribers can be questioned without the revenue provided valid reasons. We have not entered into the merits of the controversy. Suffice it to say that apart from being public limited companies, the subscribers include other infrastructure hospitality companies. Having come to this conclusion, we are constrained to hold that there is no justification in issuing of notice under section 148 of the Act in the given facts of the case. There is no lack of disclosure or suppression of any material facts. All queries of Respondent No.2 have been answered by the assessee or the subscribers in question especially when all questionnaires addressed to subscribers were duly answered by the subscribers. We may add a word of caution here. Although the Petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Vodafone [2014 (10) TMI 278 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and the department has accepted the said decision and decided against challenging it by issuing a circular, we would not equate all cases of share premium as being covered by the said judgment and circular. In a given case and the given fact situation, assessees may be required to be probed for valid reasons. Thus no justification for reopening of the assessment - Decided in favour of assessee.
|