9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This appeal by the Revenue is preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] - 8, New Delhi dated 03.04.2019 pertaining to assessment year 2015-16. 2. The solitary grievance of the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition u/s 56(2)(viia)(ii) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') amounting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the investment was made. The assessee submitted the fair market value of shares at Rs. 148.08 per share and purchase price is Rs. 104 per share. The assessee has paid lesser value by Rs. 44.07 per share. Multiplying the same with number of shares purchased by the assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 64,20,99,900/- u/s 56(2)(viia(ii) of the Act. 6. The assessee challenged th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. Before us, the ld. DR vehemently stated that it was the assessee who submitted the valuation report of the fair market value before the Assessing Officer from which the Assessing Officer came to know that the fair market value of the share was Rs. 148.07 per share. It is the say of the ld. DR that basis this valuation report, the Assessing Officer made the impugned addition of Rs. 64.20 crores ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Assessing Officer on the valuation of fair market value as per Rule 11UA(1) of the Rules. We find that in the remand report, other than supporting the assessment, the Assessing Officer has not commented at all on the determination of fair market value as per book value prescribed u/r 11UA(1) of the I.T. Rules. 11. No error or infirmity was pointed out by the Assessing Officer in the said v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
