Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Vicarious liability for dishonoured company cheques may extend to non-signatory directors where complaints contain foundational responsibility avermen...
The ITAT held that the AO erred in substituting the discounted cash flow (DCF) method with the net asset value (NAV) method under Rule 11UA for valuation of shares allotted to the assessee's promoters, as no new funds were introduced and no unaccounted income was generated. The AO's reliance on discrepancies in projections was insufficient to question the genuineness of the transaction. The subsequent sale of shares to a third party at a higher price supported the valuer's DCF-based valuation. The Tribunal reaffirmed that projections, though not perfectly accurate, cannot be disregarded in favor of NAV, and AO cannot arbitrarily replace the valuation method. Accordingly, the addition under section 56(2)(viib) was deleted, and the assessee's valuation method was upheld.
The ITAT held that the AO erred in substituting the discounted cash flow (DCF) method with the net asset value (NAV) method under Rule 11UA for valuation of shares allotted to the assessee's promoters, as no new funds were introduced and no unaccounted income was generated. The AO's reliance on discrepancies in projections was insufficient to question the genuineness of the transaction. The subsequent sale of shares to a third party at a higher price supported the valuer's DCF-based valuation. The Tribunal reaffirmed that projections, though not perfectly accurate, cannot be disregarded in favor of NAV, and AO cannot arbitrarily replace the valuation method. Accordingly, the addition under section 56(2)(viib) was deleted, and the assessee's valuation method was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
