Assessee wins Section 56(2)(viib) case as tax officer wrongly changed share valuation method from DCF to NAV

ITAT Bangalore ruled in favor of the assessee regarding addition under section 56(2)(viib) for share valuation. The AO improperly changed the valuation method from DCF to NAV, exceeding jurisdiction as assessees have the right to choose prescribed methods. The AO can only scrutinize the chosen method's working, not substitute it entirely. The tribunal found the share price of Rs. 13.94 was validated through an independent transaction between parties and complied with FEMA/RBI requirements. The addition was deleted and CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,86,77,17,914/- under the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Confirmation of Addition under Section 56(2)(viib)
- Facts and Background: The assessee, a private limited company engaged in food delivery, issued shares to ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd. at Rs. 13.94 per share. The valuation was conducted by Ernst and Young Merchant Banking Services Ltd. using the discounted cash flow (DCF) method. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee had incurred persistent losses and questioned the reliability of the projections used for the DCF method. The AO determined the value per share at Rs. 1.20 using the net assets value (NAV) method and added the excess amount to the total income under section 56(2)(viib).

- Assessee's Arguments: The assessee argued that the DCF method is a recognized method under section 56(2)(viib) and the valuation was done by an independent merchant banker. The assessee contended that future growth potential should be considered, not historical losses. They also highlighted that the transaction between Delivery Hero and ANI Technologies was genuine and between unconnected parties, and the same valuation should apply.

- AO's Position: The AO rejected the DCF method, asserting that projections should be based on historical data. The AO emphasized that the assessee was not registered as a startup and had no venture capitalist investment, thus not qualifying for exceptions under section 56(2)(viib).

- CIT(A)'s Decision: The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, reiterating that the projections in the valuation report were unreliable and the valuation report was prepared only for the transfer of shares between Delivery Hero and ANI Technologies, not for the issuance of new shares.

- Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the assessee adopted the DCF method, which is one of the prescribed methods under section 56(2)(viib) read with Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO cannot change the method selected by the assessee but can scrutinize the contents of the valuation. The Tribunal cited the Bombay High Court's decision in Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd. v. Pr. CIT, which held that the AO must base any fresh valuation on the method initially adopted by the assessee. The Tribunal also referred to the Bangalore Tribunal's decision in M/s Innoviti Payment Solution Pvt Ltd. vs. ITO, which outlined that the AO can scrutinize the valuation report but cannot change the method of valuation opted by the assessee.

- Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by rejecting the DCF method and substituting it with the NAV method. The Tribunal also noted that the transaction between Delivery Hero and ANI Technologies was genuine and the valuation was accepted under FEMA and RBI guidelines. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 1,86,77,17,914/-.

Final Judgment:
The appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. The order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the AO is directed to delete the addition made under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act.

---