Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
861 to 880 of 96001 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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
