Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The High Court held that u/r 11UA(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, the assessee has the option to choose between the Net Asset Value method or the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method for computing the fair market value for the applicability of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act. Once the assessee exercises this option, the Assessing Officer cannot question the applicability or computation of the fair market value using the chosen method, even during regular assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer cannot reopen the assessment merely because the valuation under one method is lower than the other method chosen by the assessee, as this does not constitute an escapement of income. The court opined that the Assessing Officer cannot assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment to verify the veracity and computation under the DCF method on the ground that the assessee did not fulfill the projected growth in subsequent years, as no assessee can accurately predict future growth at the time of making projections.
The High Court held that u/r 11UA(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, the assessee has the option to choose between the Net Asset Value method or the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method for computing the fair market value for the applicability of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act. Once the assessee exercises this option, the Assessing Officer cannot question the applicability or computation of the fair market value using the chosen method, even during regular assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer cannot reopen the assessment merely because the valuation under one method is lower than the other method chosen by the assessee, as this does not constitute an escapement of income. The court opined that the Assessing Officer cannot assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment to verify the veracity and computation under the DCF method on the ground that the assessee did not fulfill the projected growth in subsequent years, as no assessee can accurately predict future growth at the time of making projections.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.