Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
AO rejected DCF method for valuation of shares issued as rights issue to existing shareholders. Instead, AO applied NAV method u/r 11UA determining FMV at Rs.3.07 per share and made addition u/s 56(2)(viib). ITAT held DCF is recognized valuation method based on future projections considering various factors. AO cannot tinker with DCF method adopted by assessee and apply NAV method. When law provides two methods, AO cannot reject one method for another without substantial reasons. Following Cinestaan, DCF valuation by assessee accepted. No addition u/s 56(2)(viib) upheld. Regarding addition u/s 68, assessee companies had sufficient reserves, revenue, borrowings to explain source. Onus of proving source discharged. Addition u/s 68 deleted. Assessee's appeal allowed.
AO rejected DCF method for valuation of shares issued as rights issue to existing shareholders. Instead, AO applied NAV method u/r 11UA determining FMV at Rs.3.07 per share and made addition u/s 56(2)(viib). ITAT held DCF is recognized valuation method based on future projections considering various factors. AO cannot tinker with DCF method adopted by assessee and apply NAV method. When law provides two methods, AO cannot reject one method for another without substantial reasons. Following Cinestaan, DCF valuation by assessee accepted. No addition u/s 56(2)(viib) upheld. Regarding addition u/s 68, assessee companies had sufficient reserves, revenue, borrowings to explain source. Onus of proving source discharged. Addition u/s 68 deleted. Assessee's appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
