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...
ITAT held the assessee failed to justify share valuation under Sec. 56(2)(viib), as the submitted valuation report omitted loan liabilities. CIT(A)'s direction for valuation from two valuers at assessee's option while restricting AO's scope was deemed unjustified. The DCF-based valuation was questioned due to lack of business activities in subsequent years. Following precedent from Madras HC, ITAT remanded the matter back to AO for fresh determination of share FMV, as the original fact-finding exercise was incomplete. The valuation must consider all liabilities and actual business performance. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes, directing AO to conduct comprehensive share valuation under Sec. 56(2)(viib).
ITAT held the assessee failed to justify share valuation under Sec. 56(2)(viib), as the submitted valuation report omitted loan liabilities. CIT(A)'s direction for valuation from two valuers at assessee's option while restricting AO's scope was deemed unjustified. The DCF-based valuation was questioned due to lack of business activities in subsequent years. Following precedent from Madras HC, ITAT remanded the matter back to AO for fresh determination of share FMV, as the original fact-finding exercise was incomplete. The valuation must consider all liabilities and actual business performance. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes, directing AO to conduct comprehensive share valuation under Sec. 56(2)(viib).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.