Tribunal directs reexamination of valuation report under DCF method, assessee's appeal allowed.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and directed the AO to reexamine the valuation report under the DCF method, following the precedent set in a similar case. The AO must adhere to the DCF method and cannot switch to another valuation method. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the addition of share premium amount under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Methodology for determining the share premium value (DCF method vs. Net Asset Value method).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Addition of Share Premium Amount under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The assessee challenged the order of the CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs. 67,09,738/- made by the AO under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The AO had assessed the excess share premium amount based on the Net Asset Value (NAV) method, while the assessee had used the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method for valuation. The assessee argued that DCF is a recognized method under Rule 11UA of the Income-tax Rules and cited decisions from coordinate benches in similar cases to support their stance.

2. Methodology for Determining the Share Premium Value (DCF Method vs. Net Asset Value Method):
The AO rejected the DCF method used by the assessee and instead adopted the NAV method, determining the share premium at Rs. 7.72 per share. The assessee contended that the AO should not change the valuation method opted by the assessee but can scrutinize the valuation report and adopt a fresh valuation if necessary. The Tribunal referred to several cases, including M/s. Innoviti Payment Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO and Vodafone M Pesa Ltd vs. PCIT, where it was held that the AO must scrutinize the valuation report prepared under the DCF method and cannot change the method of valuation. The Tribunal concluded that the AO should follow the DCF method and if not satisfied, can determine a fresh valuation either by himself or through an independent valuer, but must confront the assessee with the findings.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and restored the issue to the AO for a fresh examination of the valuation report under the DCF method, following the directions given in the case of Innoviti Payment Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The AO is directed to scrutinize the valuation report and determine a fresh valuation if necessary, but must adhere to the DCF method and cannot switch to another method. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

Order Pronounced:
The order was pronounced in the open court on 25th August 2021.

---