Skip to main content

Share Premium can be treated as Undisclosed If High Premium is not justified by Valuation Report

Bangalore bench of ITAT in the case of M/s. Cornerstone Property Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, ruled that Share premium received can be assessed as undisclosed income if the high premium is not justified by a valuation report and the high premium is not supported by the financials. 

In instant case Assessee engaged in the business of Real Estate filed its revised return declaring a loss. Following the consequential proceedings notice under section 147 issued, later dropped by the AO and finally, assessment was completed with the income of Rs.49.50 Crores shown as “Share Premium” as ‘Income from other sources’. 

On appeal, the CIT (A) upheld the action of the AO and the Assessee carried the matter to this tribunal. It was observed by the Assessing Officer that a company by name, M/s. Walden Properties Pvt. Ltd., had invested an amount of Rs.50 Crores and in lieu, thereof the assessee had issued 5 lakh shares of face value of Rs.10 per share. Accordingly, AO held the transaction was not the genuine one.

Article refererred: http://www.taxscan.in/share-premium-undisclosed-high-premium-valuation-report-itat/21513/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Taxscan+%28Top+Stories+%E2%80%93+Taxscan+%7C+Simplifying+Tax+Laws%29

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more