Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2017 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 122 - HC - Income TaxAddition made under Section 14A - application of Rule 8D - Held that:- Rule 8D of the Rules is only applicable from 2008-09 as held by this Court in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ). So far as the said objection is concerned with regard to own funds available with the assessee and the amounts invested in tax free investments, it is very pertinent to note that the Revenue does not dispute the figures as indicated in the balance sheet for year ending 2004 and 2005 and relied upon by the Tribunal. It is also not disputed that the same were a part of the record. Therefore the mere fact that attention was not specifically invited to these figures before the Assessing Officer would not by itself justify the Tribunal ignoring the same while dealing with an appeal under the Act. Substitute the 'full value of consideration' received on sale of shares by its 'fair market value' in the subject Assessment Year - Held that:- In the present facts the Revenue accepts the documents but only substitutes the consideration. Therefore, the issue is whether such substitution of full consideration received by fair market value of the asset is permissible. As held by the Tribunal at the relevant time there was no power vested in the authorities under the Act to substitute a full value of consideration received for sale of shares by fair market value in respect of stocks and shares. The power to substitute full consideration with fair market value in respect of shares came into the statute only on introduction of Section 50D with effect from 1st April, 2013. Moreover, such a power under Section 50D of the Act is only to be exercised if the Assessing Officer comes to a finding that the consideration received is not ascertainable or cannot be determined. Appeal admitted : (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in deleting the addition of ₹ 13,25,00,000/made under Section 56(1) of the Income Tax Act being the share application money fortified without appreciating the fact that the transactions of forfeiture was clearly manipulated in a way to benefit the assessee company without any incidence of tax? (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in deleting the addition of ₹ 4,05,36,593/made under Section 56(1) of the Act being the value of the leasehold right received by the assessee from its associate concern at NIL value, without appreciating the fact that the transactions was manipulated in a way to benefit the assessee company without any incidence of tax?”
|