Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Rugby Regency P. Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
Appeal Number : ITA No. 653/Del/2019
Date of Judgement/Order : 25/01/2024
Related Assessment Year : 2015-16
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Rugby Regency P. Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

In a recent case between Rugby Regency P. Ltd and ACIT (ITAT Delhi), a crucial issue regarding the allotment of equity shares at a premium was contested under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act. The dispute revolved around the valuation method adopted for determining the fair market value (FMV) of shares allotted by the subsidiary to its holding company. This article delves into the legal intricacies of the case and sheds light on the precedents set by the judiciary in similar matters.

Background: Rugby Regency P. Ltd issued 12,03,000 equity shares to its 100% holding company, M/s Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd., at a premium of Rs. 40/- each. The shares were valued based on the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method, certified by a Chartered Accountant, in accordance with Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

Key Legal Observations: The Tribunal, in its analysis of the case, emphasized the genuineness of the transaction between the parties involved. It was highlighted that the primary dispute lied in the determination of FMV of the shares and the applicability of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. Notably, the Tribunal referenced past judgments, such as KBC India Pvt. Ltd. and Hometrail Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., where it was established that in transactions between a holding company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, no outsider is benefited, thereby negating the applicability of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act.

Precedents and Legal Rulings: The Tribunal cited the case of ACIT Vs. Y. Venkannachaudhary and Vaani Estates Pvt. Ltd. to reinforce the principle that transactions between a holding company and its subsidiary should not attract the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. Furthermore, it invoked the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in PCIT Vs. Cinestaan Entertainment to emphasize that valuation, especially in the case of start-up companies, involves projections and approximations and cannot be subject to arithmetical precision.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031