TP adjustment for control premium upheld as it is only the seller who can demand control premium in case he is selling the controlling stake. Even price charged for transfer of shares is as per SEBI Regulations, it can't be deemed to be at ALP
In the instant case the assessee belonged to Lanxess (‘L’) Group which was engaged in the chemical business globally. It held 50.97% shares of L in which RA Group also held 18.33%. The assessee sold its entire shareholding in L group to the INEOS ABS at a negotiated price of Rs. 196.36 per share, whereas the RA group had been paid at Rs. 201 per share. The INEOS ABS was a joint venture of L group and INEOS group in which the holding company of the assessee had 49% share shareholding. Since assessee had not been paid anything towards control premium though it had sold the controlling stake in the company, the TPO proposed adjustment on account of control premium at 25% of share value. The AO made adjustment consequent to order passed by TPO.
The Tribunal held as under:
1) The TPO referred to the report of Phillip Sounders Jr. PHD ('Phillip') (who gave a finding that control premium varied from 30% to 50% of the public unquoted price) to estimate the control premium;
2) The TPO/AO had compared price paid to the assessee with the price paid to RA Group who held only 18.83% share which was not a controlling stake. The RA Group was a good internal CUP as both the assessee and RA Group had sold the shares of the same company and buyer was also the same. Therefore, the transaction was identical except the fact that the assessee had sold the controlling stake;
3) Thus, only what was required to be considered was adjustment on account of controlling stake transferred by the assessee by estimating the price for the controlling stake. The report by Phillip which was based on research undertaken in respect of several public quoted companies could be used as reliable material. Considering this the adjustment of 25% of the share value made by AO/TPO on account of controlling premium was justified;
4) The argument of the learned AR that the assessee was selling the business and, therefore, could not expect control premium, had no merit. In fact, it was only the seller who could demand control premium in case he or she was selling the control stake;
5) The ld. AR for the assessee had also argued that the general public shareholders had also been paid at the rate of Rs. 201 per share as per SEBI Regulation no. 20(4). But the SEBI regulations does not in any way state that price negotiated by the assessee with the buyer is at arm's length price. Thus, order of AO was to be upheld - Lanxess India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2013] 36 taxmann.com 350 (Mumbai - Trib.)
In the instant case the assessee belonged to Lanxess (‘L’) Group which was engaged in the chemical business globally. It held 50.97% shares of L in which RA Group also held 18.33%. The assessee sold its entire shareholding in L group to the INEOS ABS at a negotiated price of Rs. 196.36 per share, whereas the RA group had been paid at Rs. 201 per share. The INEOS ABS was a joint venture of L group and INEOS group in which the holding company of the assessee had 49% share shareholding. Since assessee had not been paid anything towards control premium though it had sold the controlling stake in the company, the TPO proposed adjustment on account of control premium at 25% of share value. The AO made adjustment consequent to order passed by TPO.
The Tribunal held as under:
1) The TPO referred to the report of Phillip Sounders Jr. PHD ('Phillip') (who gave a finding that control premium varied from 30% to 50% of the public unquoted price) to estimate the control premium;
2) The TPO/AO had compared price paid to the assessee with the price paid to RA Group who held only 18.83% share which was not a controlling stake. The RA Group was a good internal CUP as both the assessee and RA Group had sold the shares of the same company and buyer was also the same. Therefore, the transaction was identical except the fact that the assessee had sold the controlling stake;
3) Thus, only what was required to be considered was adjustment on account of controlling stake transferred by the assessee by estimating the price for the controlling stake. The report by Phillip which was based on research undertaken in respect of several public quoted companies could be used as reliable material. Considering this the adjustment of 25% of the share value made by AO/TPO on account of controlling premium was justified;
4) The argument of the learned AR that the assessee was selling the business and, therefore, could not expect control premium, had no merit. In fact, it was only the seller who could demand control premium in case he or she was selling the control stake;
5) The ld. AR for the assessee had also argued that the general public shareholders had also been paid at the rate of Rs. 201 per share as per SEBI Regulation no. 20(4). But the SEBI regulations does not in any way state that price negotiated by the assessee with the buyer is at arm's length price. Thus, order of AO was to be upheld - Lanxess India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2013] 36 taxmann.com 350 (Mumbai - Trib.)
No comments:
Post a Comment