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 affirmed CIT(A) and dismissed the revenue's appeal, holding that under Rule 11UA(2) the assessee had statutory option to adopt either NAV or DCF for valuation of unquoted equity shares for s.56(2)(viib); once the assessee validly exercised the option and furnished a merchant banker's DCF valuation, the AO lacked jurisdiction to unilaterally alter the valuation method. The AO's rejection of the valuation without obtaining an alternative valuation from an authorized valuer under Rule 11UA(2) was impermissible. Absent any admissible contrary valuation, the addition was correctly deleted and the assessment adjustment was reversed in favour of the assessee; appeal by the revenue dismissed.
ITAT affirmed CIT(A) and dismissed the revenue's appeal, holding that under Rule 11UA(2) the assessee had statutory option to adopt either NAV or DCF for valuation of unquoted equity shares for s.56(2)(viib); once the assessee validly exercised the option and furnished a merchant banker's DCF valuation, the AO lacked jurisdiction to unilaterally alter the valuation method. The AO's rejection of the valuation without obtaining an alternative valuation from an authorized valuer under Rule 11UA(2) was impermissible. Absent any admissible contrary valuation, the addition was correctly deleted and the assessment adjustment was reversed in favour of the assessee; appeal by the revenue dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.