TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ket value in a method as prescribed the Assessing Officer does not have a choice to dispute the justification. The methods of valuation are prescribed in Rule 11UA(2) of the Rules. The provisions of Rule 11UA(2)(b) of the Rules provides that, the Assessee can adopt the fair market value as per the above two methods i.e., either DCF method or fair market value of the unquoted equity shares determined by a merchant banker. The choice of method is that of the Assessee. The Tribunal has followed the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd. [ 2018 (3) TMI 530 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and has taken the view that the AO can scrutinize the valuation report and he can determine a fresh valuation either by himself or by calling a determination from an independent valuer to confront the Assessee but the basis has to be DCF method and he cannot change the method of valuation which has been opted by the Assessee. We are of view that the issue with regard to valuation has to be decided afresh by the AO on the lines indicated in the decision of ITAT, Bangalore in the case of VBHC Value Homes Pvt. Ltd. [ 2020 (6) TMI 318 - ITAT BANGALORE] i.e., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f it is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in section 14, items A to E. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head Income from other sources , namely :- (i) .. (viia) (viib) where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year, from any person being a resident, any consideration for issue of shares that exceeds the face value of such shares, the aggregate consideration received for such shares as exceeds the fair market value of the shares: Provided that this clause shall not apply where the consideration for issue of shares is received- (i) by a venture capital undertaking from a venture capital company or a venture capital fund; or (ii) by a company from a class or classes of persons as may be notified by the Central Government in this behalf. Explanation.-For the purposes of this clause,- (a) the fair market value of the shares shall be the value- (i) as may be determined in accordance with such method as may be prescribed, or (ii) as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Rules) read with Sec.56(2)(viib) of the Act, the AO was of the view that no projection was made in the working as per the DCF method. The AO rejected the valuation report prepared as per DCF method and proceeded to value shares as per the Net Assets Value method (NAV method) at ₹ 8.84ps per share and ultimately held that a sum of ₹ 4,37,85,711 was consideration received in excess of FMV of shares and brought the said sum to tax u/s.56(2)(viib) of the Act. 6. On appeal by the Assessee, the first appellate authority viz., the ld.CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer is well within his powers to disturb the valuation of the chartered accountant furnished by the Assessee substantiating the fair market value. The ld. CIT(A) also relied on the decision of ITAT, Delhi in the case of Agro Portfolio (P) Ltd Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), New Delhi (2018) 94 Taxmann.com 112 (Delhi-Trib) , wherein it was held as follows:- 15. In these circumstances, we are unable to accept the contentions of the assessee that in view of the provisions under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act read with Rule 11UA(2) of the Rules the Ld. AO had no jurisdictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the Tribunal. None appeared for the Assessee when the case was called for hearing. An application for adjournment without power of attorney was filed, which was rejected. We proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the submission of the learned DR who relied on certain decisions of the ITAT which are referred to in the order of the CIT(A). We shall deal with those cases in the following cases. 8. With regard to the correctness of DCF method adopted by the Assessee for valuing shares and the procedure to be followed when such method of valuation is not accepted by the AO we notice that the ITAT, Bangalore Bench in the case of VBHC Value Homes Pvt. Ltd., Vs ITO in ITA No.2541/Bang/2019 order dated 12-06-2020 , after relying on the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone MPesa Ltd Vs Pr.CIT 164 DTR 257 and decision of the ITAT, Bangalore Bench in the case of Innoviti Payment Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs ITO(2019) 102 Taxmann.com 59 held as follows:- 9. We have considered the rival submissions. First of all, we reproduce paras 11 to 14 from the Tribunal order cited by learned AR of the assessee having been rendered in the case of Innoviti Payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his submission that a part of demand arising out of the assessment order dated 21st December, 2017 would on adoption of DCF Method will be sustained in part, the same is without working out the figures. This was an exercise which ought to have been done by the Assessing Officer and that has not been done by him. In fact, he has completely disregarded the DCF Method for arriving at the fair market value. Therefore, the demand in the facts need to be stayed. 12. As per above Para of this judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, it was held that the AO can scrutinize the valuation report and he can determine a fresh valuation either by himself or by calling a final determination from an independent valuer to confront the assessee. But the basis has to be DCF method and he cannot change the method of valuation which has been opted by the assessee. Hence, in our considered opinion, in the present case, when the guidance of Hon'ble Bombay high Court is available, we should follow this judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in preference to various tribunal orders cited by both sides and therefore, we are not required to examine and consider these tribunal orders. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aluation report, the facts and data available on the date of valuation only has to be considered and actual result of future cannot be a basis to decide about reliability of the projections. (3) The primary onus to prove the correctness of the valuation Report is on the assessee as he has special knowledge and he is privy to the facts of the company and only he has opted for this method. Hence, he has to satisfy about the correctness of the projections, Discounting factor and Terminal value etc. with the help of Empirical data or industry norm if any and/or Scientific Data, Scientific Method, scientific study and applicable Guidelines regarding DCF Method of Valuation. 10. From the paras reproduced above, it is seen that in this case, the Tribunal has followed the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd., Vs. Pr. CIT (supra). The Tribunal has noted that as per the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, it was held that AO can scrutinize the valuation report and he can determine a fresh valuation either by himself or by calling a determination from an independent valuer to confront the assessee but the basis has to be DCF meth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ermined with such method as may be prescribed or the fair market value can be determined to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. The provision provides an Assessee two choices of adopting either NAV method or DCF method. If the Assessee determines the fair market value in a method as prescribed the Assessing Officer does not have a choice to dispute the justification. The methods of valuation are prescribed in Rule 11UA(2) of the Rules. The provisions of Rule 11UA(2)(b) of the Rules provides that, the Assessee can adopt the fair market value as per the above two methods i.e., either DCF method or fair market value of the unquoted equity shares determined by a merchant banker. The choice of method is that of the Assessee. The Tribunal has followed the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd., Vs. Pr. CIT (supra) and has taken the view that the AO can scrutinize the valuation report and he can determine a fresh valuation either by himself or by calling a determination from an independent valuer to confront the Assessee but the basis has to be DCF method and he cannot change the method of valuation which has been opted by the Assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
