AO wrongly rejected share valuation under Rule 11UA despite expert DCF method showing Rs 59.99 value for Rs 60 shares

The ITAT Delhi held that the AO erred in rejecting share valuation under Rule 11UA when the assessee issued shares at Rs. 60 per share to a non-resident entity, valued at Rs. 59.99 using DCF method. The AO incorrectly rejected the prescribed expert's valuation citing previous losses and price differences between resident and non-resident allotments. The tribunal found the AO failed to consider the joint venture agreement explaining different pricing due to varying capital contribution ratios (40% non-resident, 60% resident). The CIT(A) correctly upheld the valuation noting improved profit margins. The AO's inconsistent acceptance/rejection of valuations across three entities constituted impermissible approbation and reprobation, making the exercise liable to be set aside.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal by Revenue against First Appellate order for assessment year 2014-15.
2. Valuation of shares for resident and non-resident entities under section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Assessment of fair market value and share premium.
4. Discrepancy in valuation treatment for different entities.
5. Application of DCF Method for share valuation.

Issue 1: Appeal by Revenue against First Appellate order
The Revenue appealed against the First Appellate order dated 23.03.2018 for assessment year 2014-15 under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was filed after the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Gurgaon, set aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 143(3) of the Act. The appeal also involved Cross-Objections filed by the Assessee.

Issue 2: Valuation of shares under section 56(2)(viib)
The case involved the valuation of shares issued to a resident company and a non-resident company under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. The AO rejected the share valuation for the resident entity, leading to additions in the hands of the Assessee. The AO's decision was based on the difference in valuation between resident and non-resident entities, citing the loss in previous assessment years.

Issue 3: Assessment of fair market value and share premium
The AO determined the fair market value of shares at Rs. 3.60 per share due to the loss in previous years. The AO considered the share premium received by the Assessee to be income under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, as the consideration on share issuance exceeded the FMV. The First Appellate Authority set aside the AO's order, leading to the Revenue's appeal.

Issue 4: Discrepancy in valuation treatment
The AO's rejection of the share valuation for the resident entity was based on the difference in share price between resident and non-resident entities. However, the joint ventures agreement between the entities clarified the rationale behind the differing valuations, which the AO failed to consider objectively.

Issue 5: Application of DCF Method for share valuation
The use of the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Method for share valuation was a key aspect of the case. The prescribed expert's report, admissible under section 56(2)(viib) read with Rule 11UA (2)(b), was crucial for determining the fair market value. The First Appellate Authority upheld the valuation based on the DCF Method, considering the marked improvement in the company's profit margins in subsequent years.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal while allowing the Assessee's Cross-Objections. The Tribunal found that the AO's rejection of the prescribed expert's report without factual basis was erroneous. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering all relevant clauses of agreements and expert reports for fair valuation, ultimately upholding the First Appellate order.

---