Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
