Issues: (i) Whether the 794-day delay in filing the first appeal was supported by sufficient cause and liable to be condoned; (ii) Whether a credit co-operative society, without an RBI banking licence, was entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) for income from providing credit facilities to members.

Issue (i): Whether the 794-day delay in filing the first appeal was supported by sufficient cause and liable to be condoned.

Analysis: Sections 249(2) and 249(3) prescribe the limitation for a first appeal while permitting admission of a delayed appeal upon sufficient cause. Although limitation runs from service of the assessment order, the demand had been kept in abeyance pending resolution of the relevant deduction issue. The belief that immediate appellate recourse was unnecessary while the demand remained unenforced was bona fide, and the delayed filing conferred no advantage. Substantial justice therefore prevailed over technical considerations.

Conclusion: The delay in filing the first appeal was condoned, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a credit co-operative society, without an RBI banking licence, was entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) for income from providing credit facilities to members.

Analysis: Section 80P(2)(a)(i) allows deduction of profits attributable to providing credit facilities to members. The exclusion in section 80P(4) applies only to a co-operative bank functioning as a banking institution and possessing an RBI licence to conduct banking business. A credit co-operative society providing credit only to its members, without such licence, is not a co-operative bank for this exclusion. The relevant income arose from member-credit activities and no independent basis existed to deny the deduction.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i), and the disallowance was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The first-appellate delay was excused and the income derived from providing credit facilities to members was excluded from assessment through the statutory deduction.

Ratio Decidendi: A co-operative credit society that provides credit facilities to its members without an RBI banking licence is not a co-operative bank excluded by section 80P(4) and is entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i).

Issues: Whether the addition for unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be sustained without verification of fresh evidence relating to catering receipts and sale of inherited jewellery.

Analysis: The confirmations and affidavits concerning catering receipts, inheritance of gold and silver articles, and their alleged sale were produced for the first time in appeal and required verification. The assessee must establish the existence of the catering activity, gross receipts, expenses and customers; and, regarding jewellery sales, the receipt of ornaments from the grandmother and the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the purchaser transactions. The fresh material was relevant and required factual examination in the interests of justice.

Conclusion: The addition requires fresh adjudication after verification of the evidence and discharge of the assessee's burden of proof.

Issues: Whether disallowances under section 40(a)(ia) and section 40A(3), already excluded by a charitable trust while computing its application of income, could again be disallowed while processing the return under section 143(1).

Analysis: The statutory framework permits exemption for income applied towards charitable objects under section 11(1). The computation of net application of income in Form No. 10BB had already excluded the amounts relating to non-deduction of tax at source and cash payments. The intimation under section 143(1) accepted the stated net application but again made the same disallowances, resulting in duplication.

Conclusion: The disallowances under section 40(a)(ia) and section 40A(3) made in the section 143(1) intimation were deleted as duplicate disallowances, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the entire unaccounted sales for A.Ys. 2020-21 and 2021-22 could be assessed as income despite absence of documentary proof of related expenditure; (ii) Whether profit should be estimated at 45% or at the rates voluntarily offered by the assessee for those years; (iii) Whether cash sales of Rs. 5,91,57,963 for A.Y. 2022-23 were additional unaccounted turnover, warranting any further addition or profit estimation.

Issue (i): Whether the entire unaccounted sales for A.Ys. 2020-21 and 2021-22 could be assessed as income despite absence of documentary proof of related expenditure.

Analysis: Unaccounted sales represent gross business receipts and not, by themselves, taxable profit. In the absence of material establishing that the cost or investment relating to the sales was independently unexplained, taxation must be confined to the real income or profit embedded in the turnover. The mining and quarrying operations necessarily involved operational expenditure, and the absence of complete vouchers for unaccounted transactions affected the rate of estimation but did not justify treating the entire turnover as income.

Conclusion: Only the reasonably estimated profit embedded in the unaccounted sales was taxable; assessment of the entire unaccounted turnover as income was impermissible.

Issue (ii): Whether profit should be estimated at 45% or at the rates voluntarily offered by the assessee for those years.

Analysis: The 45% estimate principally relied on an external gross-profit rate without establishing functional or economic comparability with the assessee's quarrying business, and without distinguishing gross profit from net business income. The assessee's own accepted historical net-profit ratio and the profitability of its accounted business provided more reliable internal benchmarks. The voluntarily offered rates of 25% for A.Y. 2020-21 and approximately 19.70% for A.Y. 2021-22 were higher than those internal benchmarks, and no material established that the unaccounted transactions yielded a higher margin.

Conclusion: The profit rates of 25% for A.Y. 2020-21 and approximately 19.70% for A.Y. 2021-22 were accepted; the 45% estimation and the residual additions were set aside.

Issue (iii): Whether cash sales of Rs. 5,91,57,963 for A.Y. 2022-23 were additional unaccounted turnover, warranting any further addition or profit estimation.

Analysis: The disputed cash sales formed part of the aggregate sales recorded in the seized Tally data. That aggregate, together with the March 2022 sales, reconciled with the annual turnover disclosed in the profit and loss account and was corroborated by GST disclosures. No independent material established sales over and above the disclosed turnover. The contention concerning a lower net-profit ratio could not replace the factual basis of the assessment, particularly when the books had not been rejected and no separate determination of understated profit had been made.

Conclusion: The cash sales were already included in the declared turnover; their separate addition and the alternative estimation of profit on the same sales were impermissible.

Final Conclusion: Taxable business income for A.Ys. 2020-21 and 2021-22 remained confined to the profit already offered on the unaccounted sales, while the turnover for A.Y. 2022-23 could not be enlarged by a sales component already reconciled within the declared annual turnover.

Ratio Decidendi: Where seized business sales are not shown to involve separately unexplained investment, taxation is confined to their reasonably determined profit component, and a sales component reconciled within declared turnover cannot be taxed again.

Issues: (i) Whether the approval for the order under section 148A(d) and notice under section 148 was obtained from the correct specified authority under section 151(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether the Indian associated enterprise constituted a Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment under Article 5(5) of the India-Switzerland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.

Issue (i): Whether the approval for the order under section 148A(d) and notice under section 148 was obtained from the correct specified authority under section 151(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The show-cause notice under section 148A(b) was issued before expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The period allowed to furnish a reply, including the extended period up to 22.04.2022, was excludable under the third proviso to section 149(1). Following the fourth proviso, the order under section 148A(d) and notice under section 148 issued on 29.04.2022 fell within the extended seven-day period. The reassessment was consequently within three years, and the jurisdictional approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax was from the specified authority under section 151(i).

Conclusion: The approval was validly obtained from the correct specified authority; the jurisdictional challenge fails against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Indian associated enterprise constituted a Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment under Article 5(5) of the India-Switzerland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.

Analysis: The business model and material facts were identical to those in the immediately relevant assessment year, in which it had already been determined that no Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment existed in India. That determination applied mutatis mutandis to the relevant year.

Conclusion: The Indian associated enterprise did not constitute a Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment; this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Although the reassessment was jurisdictionally valid, no Indian dependent-agent permanent establishment was established, and business profits could not be attributed to India on that basis.

Ratio Decidendi: In computing the limitation for reassessment, the time allowed to an assessee to respond to a notice under section 148A(b) must be excluded, and the specified authority for approval is determined after giving effect to that statutory exclusion and extension.

Issues: Whether the Indian associated enterprise constituted a dependent agent permanent establishment in India by having and habitually exercising authority to negotiate and enter into contracts for the foreign enterprise under Article 5(5)(i) of the India-Switzerland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.

Analysis: Article 5(5)(i) requires proof that the agent possesses and habitually exercises authority to negotiate and enter into contracts for or on behalf of the foreign enterprise. The initial burden lay on the Revenue to establish actual authority and conduct; group affiliation alone was insufficient. The inter-company arrangement, approval matrix, contemporaneous emails, executed contracts and competent-authority material showed that commercial terms and non-standard proposals were approved by overseas leadership, while Indian personnel communicated pre-approved terms and performed liaison, account-management and administrative functions. Online contracts were executed through the portal without local personnel deciding contractual terms. The limited supplier enquiries and selected correspondence did not establish a recurring course of conduct amounting to habitual exercise of contractual authority. Arm's length remuneration of the Indian associated enterprise did not by itself preclude a permanent establishment, but was relevant only at the profit-attribution stage.

Conclusion: The Indian associated enterprise neither had nor habitually exercised authority to negotiate and enter into contracts for or on behalf of the foreign enterprise and therefore did not constitute a dependent agent permanent establishment in India. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a notice under Section 143(2) issued after timely rectification of defects in a return under Section 139(9) was barred by limitation.

Analysis: Timely rectification of defects under Section 139(9) validates the original return and does not amount to furnishing a fresh return. The rectified return therefore relates back to its original filing date, unlike a distinct fresh or revised return. Since the assessment was founded on the original return filed on 29 September 2017, the Revenue had itself treated that return as valid; subsequent defect removal did not reset the period for issuing the scrutiny notice.

Conclusion: The notice issued under Section 143(2) on 22 September 2019 was time-barred, and the consequential assessment order was quashed.

Issues: (i) Whether the exclusion of certain software-development comparables for functional dissimilarity, mixed software-product and service revenue without segmental data, and material brand and scale differences was justified; (ii) Whether an onsite filter could be applied to the software development services segment; (iii) Whether the DRP could apply a new comparability filter and issue directions to include or exclude comparables in determining the correct arm's length price.

Issue (i): Whether the exclusion of certain software-development comparables for functional dissimilarity, mixed software-product and service revenue without segmental data, and material brand and scale differences was justified.

Analysis: For transfer-pricing determination under the Transactional Net Margin Method, comparables must satisfy functional comparability. The excluded companies either earned mixed revenue from software products and services without reliable segmental information, performed outsourced product-development or other materially different functions, or possessed substantial brand value and scale that affected profitability. The annual-report material supported the exclusions, and no material was shown to displace those findings.

Conclusion: The exclusions of the disputed companies from the comparable set were justified, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether an onsite filter could be applied to the software development services segment.

Analysis: The onsite filter was applied for identifying suitable comparables in the software development services segment. No basis was established to show that its application to that segment was impermissible or inappropriate.

Conclusion: Application of the onsite filter was valid, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the DRP could apply a new comparability filter and issue directions to include or exclude comparables in determining the correct arm's length price.

Analysis: The statutory transfer-pricing framework permits the DRP, while deciding objections, to issue directions for inclusion or exclusion of comparables to arrive at the correct arm's length price. A new filter supported by judicially accepted comparability principles may be applied where it assists an accurate determination.

Conclusion: The DRP was competent to apply the new filter and issue consequential comparability directions, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The transfer-pricing directions excluding the challenged comparables and applying the approved filters remain effective for determination of the arm's length price.

Issues: Whether revisionary jurisdiction could be exercised where the assessment record showed that the Assessing Officer had made inquiries and examined supporting material regarding unsecured loans.

Analysis: Section 263 permits revision only where the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Explanation 2(a) to Section 263(1) applies where the order is passed without inquiries or verification that should have been made. The assessment record showed that information concerning the unsecured loans, including books of account, bank statements, loan-provider details, confirmations, balance sheets and returns, had been called for and furnished. The absence of elaborate discussion of this material in the assessment order did not establish absence of inquiry or non-application of mind. Where an inquiry has been undertaken, the Commissioner cannot invoke revision merely because further or more extensive inquiry was considered desirable or because a different view is preferred.

Conclusion: The assessment order was not shown to suffer from lack of inquiry so as to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue; revision under Section 263 was therefore not sustainable.

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings could be initiated where the notice and order did not disclose material linking the assessee to the alleged escaped income.

Analysis: The notice and order contained no particulars of any transaction attributable to the assessee, despite relying on information from the Insight portal. The same alleged amount had been used in proceedings concerning multiple ceramic dealers, while the underlying material was neither supplied nor independently verified. The record did not disclose application of mind to establish a nexus between the information and the assessee. Reassessment cannot be founded on a roving and fishing inquiry based merely on unverified portal information.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice and the order determining that it was a fit case to issue notice were quashed and set aside.

Issues: (i) Whether deduction under section 10AA is available on a voluntary transfer pricing adjustment made by the assessee; (ii) Whether an adhoc disallowance of expenditure relating to exempt income was sustainable; (iii) Whether the foreign exchange fluctuation loss was deductible; (iv) Whether the exclusion of functionally dissimilar comparables for determining the arm's length price of ITeS transactions was justified.

Issue (i): Whether deduction under section 10AA is available on a voluntary transfer pricing adjustment made by the assessee.

Analysis: Section 92C(4) denies the relevant deduction only where total income is enhanced upon determination of the arm's length price by the tax authorities. A voluntary transfer pricing adjustment, scientifically computed and offered as business income in the return, does not constitute such an enhancement. Binding jurisdictional precedent permitting the deduction remained applicable; pendency of a further challenge did not displace that precedent.

Conclusion: Deduction under section 10AA on the voluntary transfer pricing adjustment was allowable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether an adhoc disallowance of expenditure relating to exempt income was sustainable.

Analysis: The mutual-fund investments were made and redeemed during the year, leaving no opening or closing investment balance. The availability of sufficient own funds and the absence of identified expenditure relating to exempt income did not support an adhoc disallowance under section 14A and Rule 8D. The consistent treatment in the assessee's earlier years also supported deletion.

Conclusion: The adhoc disallowance of exempt-income expenditure was not sustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the foreign exchange fluctuation loss was deductible.

Analysis: Foreign exchange fluctuation loss recognised at the balance-sheet date constitutes an allowable business expenditure under section 37(1). The deduction was supported by binding precedent on the allowability of such loss.

Conclusion: The foreign exchange fluctuation loss was deductible, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the exclusion of functionally dissimilar comparables for determining the arm's length price of ITeS transactions was justified.

Analysis: The excluded entities were functionally different from the captive ITeS provider, lacked reliable segmental information, or failed relevant filters, including the related party transaction filter and employee-cost filter. Section 92C and Rule 10B permit reliance on prior functional comparability analysis where the material facts remain the same; no distinguishing facts were established.

Conclusion: The exclusion of the disputed comparables in the functional comparability analysis was justified, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The eligible-unit deduction, the deletion of the exempt-income disallowance, the deduction for foreign exchange fluctuation loss, and the transfer-pricing comparable exclusions remain effective in computing taxable income.

Ratio Decidendi: The bar on tax-incentive deductions for transfer-pricing adjustments applies to income enhanced through an arm's length price determination by the tax authorities, and not to an arm's length price adjustment voluntarily offered by the assessee in its return.

Issues: Whether a customs broker licence already revoked could be revoked again through separate proceedings for another alleged violation.

Analysis: The licence had already been revoked under an earlier order, whose validity had been upheld. A further order purporting to revoke the same licence constituted a second revocation. Even where more than one cause for revocation exists, the grounds should be dealt with in the same revocation proceedings; a separate subsequent revocation of an already revoked licence lacks statutory authority and results in unnecessary multiplicity of litigation.

Conclusion: A licence already revoked cannot be revoked again by a separate order; the second revocation was beyond the statutory framework.

Outcome: By consent, the appeal was allowed, the impugned appellate and tribunal orders were set aside, and the appellant was directed to be impleaded in the pending application.

Issues: (i) Whether the criminal complaint arising from alleged non-payment for executed civil works disclosed a criminal offence or was an impermissible money-recovery process; (ii) Whether the 2022 Enforcement Case Information Report and consequent summons survived the later quashing of its predicate FIRs; (iii) Whether an FIR based on non-delivery of a flat could continue despite the developer company not initially being arraigned as an accused; (iv) Whether the complaint concerning non-delivery, alleged double sale and multiple financing of an allotted flat disclosed only a civil dispute; (v) Whether payments by home buyers for promised flats could constitute deposits under the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004; and (vi) Whether the 2025 Enforcement Case Information Report and the provisional attachment order were liable to be quashed.

Issue (i): Whether the criminal complaint arising from alleged non-payment for executed civil works disclosed a criminal offence or was an impermissible money-recovery process.

Analysis: The complaint arose from a contract for excavation and civil works, partial payment, and a claim for the remaining contractual amount. Its predominant object was recovery of the alleged outstanding sum; allegations of cheating and intimidation did not alter the essentially monetary and contractual character of the dispute. Criminal process cannot be employed as a debt-recovery mechanism where the complaint does not disclose the essential criminal ingredients.

Conclusion: The proceedings were quashed as an abuse of process, in favour of the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the 2022 Enforcement Case Information Report and consequent summons survived the later quashing of its predicate FIRs.

Analysis: One predicate FIR had been quashed upon settlement, while the other was quashed only for procedural infirmity in the referral for investigation. The underlying private complaint alleging inducement of home buyers, collection of substantial amounts, non-delivery of units and diversion of funds remained pending. A money-laundering inquiry is not automatically extinguished by technical quashing of a predicate FIR where the scheduled-offence allegations remain subject to inquiry and there is no final merits exoneration.

Conclusion: The 2022 Enforcement Case Information Report and summons were not quashed, against the petitioners.

Issue (iii): Whether an FIR based on non-delivery of a flat could continue despite the developer company not initially being arraigned as an accused.

Analysis: The alleged statutory contravention arose from acts of the developer company, which ordinarily ought to have been included as an accused along with persons responsible for its business. However, the complaint named the company and attributed the transaction and alleged misconduct to it. Its formal omission from the array of accused was a curable defect and did not nullify allegations that prima facie disclosed cognizable offences. The investigating agency could implead the company in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The FIR was not quashed and investigation may continue, against the petitioners.

Issue (iv): Whether the complaint concerning non-delivery, alleged double sale and multiple financing of an allotted flat disclosed only a civil dispute.

Analysis: The allegations included receipt of substantial loan proceeds through a tripartite arrangement, non-delivery of possession, failure to honour pre-EMI obligations, alleged resale of the same allotted flat to another purchaser, and alleged multiple mortgages. These assertions went beyond a bare contractual default and prima facie raised issues of cheating and criminal breach of trust. At the threshold stage, disputed facts could not be resolved through a mini-trial.

Conclusion: The complaint was held to warrant investigation and was not quashed, against the petitioners.

Issue (v): Whether payments by home buyers for promised flats could constitute deposits under the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004.

Analysis: The statutory definition of deposit has broad and inclusive scope, covering money received under an arrangement that is returnable in cash, kind or specified service. The substance of the transaction, rather than its nomenclature, is decisive. Amounts collected from home buyers against the promise of construction and delivery of flats can constitute deposits, while the developer may answer the description of a financial establishment where the statutory ingredients are prima facie met.

Conclusion: Invocation of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 was sustainable at the investigation stage and the proceedings were not quashed, against the petitioners.

Issue (vi): Whether the 2025 Enforcement Case Information Report and the provisional attachment order were liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The predicate proceedings, including a central investigation into alleged builder-financier collusion, remained alive. The provisional attachment recorded reasons concerning alleged diversion, layering and siphoning of homebuyer funds as proceeds of crime. Whether the attached assets bear the requisite nexus to proceeds of crime is to be examined through the statutory adjudicatory mechanism governing confirmation of attachment and appellate review. The allegations involved serious economic offences affecting numerous home buyers and required unhindered investigation.

Conclusion: The 2025 Enforcement Case Information Report and provisional attachment order were not quashed, against the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The contractual payment dispute was excluded from criminal process, while the homebuyer-related criminal investigations and the money-laundering proceedings were permitted to continue through the prescribed statutory processes.

Ratio Decidendi: An Enforcement Case Information Report under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is not automatically invalidated by subsequent technical quashing of a predicate FIR where the underlying scheduled-offence complaint survives and there is no final exoneration on merits.

Issues: Whether amounts deposited pursuant to judicial interim directions during a pending patent dispute constituted royalty or consideration for intellectual property rights services liable to service tax under the reverse-charge mechanism.

Analysis: The service-tax provisions invoked required a payment constituting consideration for taxable services. The interim deposits were made to secure interests and balance equities pending adjudication; no vested right to receive those amounts accrued to the patent holder, and the use of the patents or technologies had not been determined. Upon settlement and withdrawal of the suit, the interim directions stood vacated and the deposited sums were released. The subsequent settlement payment towards royalty was separately subjected to IGST under the taxation regime applicable at that time.

Conclusion: The interim deposits were neither royalty nor consideration for intellectual property rights services and were not liable to service tax.

Issues: (i) Whether Cenvat credit was admissible where invoices named a third party as customer but identified the assessee as consignee and the inputs were received and recorded by the assessee; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked despite disclosure of the credit in statutory records and monthly returns.

Issue (i): Whether Cenvat credit was admissible where invoices named a third party as customer but identified the assessee as consignee and the inputs were received and recorded by the assessee.

Analysis: Rule 7(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 recognises invoices issued by registered dealers as valid documents for Cenvat credit. The invoices expressly identified the assessee as consignee and contained its registration details. Documentary material established that the inputs were physically received, entered in RG 23A records and used in manufacture. The naming of another entity as customer did not invalidate the invoices when receipt and correlation of inputs by the consignee were established.

Conclusion: Cenvat credit was admissible to the assessee; the denial of credit was unsustainable on merits.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked despite disclosure of the credit in statutory records and monthly returns.

Analysis: The credit and relevant input details were recorded in RG 23A registers and reflected in monthly returns. These disclosures negated suppression of material facts.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The credit denial and consequential demand could not survive either on merits or on limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Cenvat credit cannot be denied merely because an invoice names a third party as customer where the assessee is identified as consignee and establishes actual receipt and statutory recording of the inputs.

Issues: Whether reassessment could be initiated solely on unverified Insight portal information without material linking the assessee to the alleged transaction or demonstrating application of mind.

Analysis: The notice and the order did not disclose any transaction details or material connecting the assessee with the alleged Angadiya transaction. The identical alleged escaped-income amount had been attributed to several ceramic dealers, while the beneficiary chart did not specify any amount attributable to the assessee. The information was neither verified nor supplied to the assessee, and the record did not demonstrate application of mind. Reassessment cannot rest on a roving and fishing inquiry based merely on portal information suggesting possible escapement of income.

Conclusion: The reassessment initiation was invalid for want of verified material establishing a nexus between the assessee and the alleged escaped income.

Issues: Whether, after giving effect to the rectification deleting the negative working capital adjustment, the assessee's margin falls within the permissible arm's length range so that no transfer pricing adjustment survives.

Analysis: The rectification order directed deletion of the negative working capital adjustment, but the consequential appeal-effect order had not been issued. The determination of whether the revised margin falls within the permissible range required consideration while implementing that rectification.

Outcome: The Assessing Officer was directed to pass the appeal-effect order within 15 days, consider the assessee's claim regarding its revised margin, and afford an opportunity of hearing if a different conclusion is reached. Liberty was granted to seek revival of the appeal if aggrieved by the consequential order.

Issues: Whether the Assessing Officer could reject the Discounted Cash Flow valuation adopted for determining fair market value of unquoted shares and substitute the Net Asset Value method for an addition under section 56(2)(viib).

Analysis: Section 56(2)(viib) read with Rule 11UA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 permits valuation of unquoted equity shares through prescribed methods, including the Discounted Cash Flow method and the Net Asset Value method. The choice of a prescribed method rests with the assessee, though the valuation and its underlying assumptions remain open to scrutiny. Discounted Cash Flow valuation is necessarily based on future cash-flow estimates, management projections, growth assumptions, discount rates and business conditions prevailing on the valuation date. Doubts arising from past losses or reliance on management projections require examination of the inputs within the Discounted Cash Flow framework; they do not permit replacement of that method with the Net Asset Value method. No arithmetical error, factual inaccuracy, internal inconsistency, or foundational defect in the Discounted Cash Flow computation was established.

Conclusion: The substitution of the Discounted Cash Flow method with the Net Asset Value method was impermissible, and deletion of the addition was sustained in favour of the assessee.