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...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
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 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
