Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
Public servant status under anti-corruption law extends to recognised stock exchange leadership; constitutional and sanction challenges do not succeed...
Acquiescence, homebuyer protection and clean-slate resolution principles prevent landowners from disrupting an integrated project through late termina...
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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
