Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
