TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainbow Agri Industries at the face value at ₹ 1/-. The A.O. determined fair market value at ₹ 3.50/- without bringing any material on record to show that the assessee received more than the agreed consideration. In the above said judgments of K.P.Varghese Vs. ITO (1981 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court) and Rupee Finance & Management (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT 7(2), Mumbai (2007 (2) TMI 240 - ITAT BOMBAY-J) it has been held that the fair market value and sale value is clearly distinguishable. Therefore, we are of the view that, without any supporting material, the A.O. cannot substitute market value. Therefore, order of the CIT(A) under challenge is not required to be interfered with on any ground. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 205 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance/purpose for which sales tax deferred liability was accepted. (2) Why interest disallowance should not be made on interest free loans given to holding company. (3) Details of loss in sale of shares and debentures and explanation as to why these loss should not be disallowed . Subsequently, the financial charges to the tune of ₹ 46,67,915/- and loss claim on sale of shares and debentures amounting to ₹ 5,38,332/- ( 1,83,84,865 - 1,78,46,533) was disallowed. 3. Thereafter the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) 7, Mumbai wherein he challenged the validity of reopening. The learned CIT(A) set aside the order of AO by observing as under: I have considered the A.O.'s order as well as the appellant' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... However, the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010} 320 ITR 561 (SC) makes it clear that an assessment cannot be reopened on the basis of a mere change of opinion. There should be tangible material to come to a conclusion that there is an escapement of income from assessment year may furnish a foundation to reopen an assessment for an earlier assessment year. However, there must be some new facts which came to light in the course of assessment for the subsequent assessment year which emerge in the order of the assessment. Otherwise, a mere change of opinion on the part of the Assessing officer in the course of assessment for a subsequent assessment year would not by itself legitimize the reopening of an ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC). Hence, in our view, the Learned CIT(A) was justified in annulling its assessment. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. 4. Now we shall take up the appeal filed by the revenue for A.Y.2009-10. The revenue claim that the order of Learned CIT(A) was wrong and considering the sale of shares of ₹ 7,99,800/- at the rate of ₹ 1/- per share. On perusal on the assessment order, it was noticed that the assessee company sold the shares of ₹ 7,99,800/- of M/s. Rainbow Agri Industries Ltd., at a face value of ₹ 1/-. The A.O. was not satisfied with the selling price and determined value of each share at &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 981) 131 ITR 597 speaks that has observed as under: Since literal interpretation of section 52(2) leads to manifestly unreasonable and absurd consequence, the same should be construed having regard to the object and purpose for which it has been enacted and the setting in which it occurs. A fair and reasonable construction of section 52(2)would be read into it a condition that it would apply only where the consideration for the transfer is understated or, in other words, the assessee has actually received a larger consideration for the transfer than what is declared in the instrument of transfer and it would have no application in case of a bona fide transaction where the full value of the consideration for the transfer is correctly de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
