Taxpublishers.in - InterestingDecision/Flash_16300.htm - Tax Publishers Your Tax Solution Hub

Share via Whatsapp 221 Views


The Tax Publishers Unitech Holdings Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [W.P.(C) No. 12325/2015 & CM No. 32738/2015, dt. 4-5-2016] : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 2226 (Del-HC) Reassessment on question of share acquisition not being at fair value *Facts:* Assessee NDFC a subsidiary of Unitech Limited on a scrutiny of the group parent was found that the parent had sold shares of 3 of its group companies to the assessee at a price lower than the book value i.e. at its cost. The book value was found to be of 361 crores while the price at which it was sold i.e. at cost price was 41 crores. Thus reassessment proceedings were invoked on ground that the fair value of the said shares was not proven and the difference was income escaping assessment under section 28(iv). This was contested in the high court by virtue of a writ. Held in favour of the assessee that the said asst. year was on a scrutiny mode and the assessee indeed was asked questions on this transaction and with submissions being made it is presumed that the assessee had furnished full reasons and the reassessment was only a change of opinion now thus stands quashed with writ being allowed. CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) and CIT v. Usha International Ltd.: (2012) 348 ITR 485 (SC) upheld.

The Tax Publishers

Unitech Holdings Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [W.P.(C) No. 12325/2015 & CM No. 32738/2015, dt. 4-5-2016] : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 2226 (Del-HC)

Reassessment on question of share acquisition not being at fair value

Facts:

Assessee NDFC a subsidiary of Unitech Limited on a scrutiny of the group parent was found that the parent had sold shares of 3 of its group companies to the assessee at a price lower than the book value i.e. at its cost. The book value was found to be of 361 crores while the price at which it was sold i.e. at cost price was 41 crores. Thus reassessment proceedings were invoked on ground that the fair value of the said shares was not proven and the difference was income escaping assessment under section 28(iv). This was contested in the high court by virtue of a writ.

Held in favour of the assessee that the said asst. year was on a scrutiny mode and the assessee indeed was asked questions on this transaction and with submissions being made it is presumed that the assessee had furnished full reasons and the reassessment was only a change of opinion now thus stands quashed with writ being allowed.

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) and CIT v. Usha International Ltd.: (2012) 348 ITR 485 (SC) upheld.