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 dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition under s.56(2)(viib), holding that valuation by DCF is a technical exercise to be respected absent proof of perversity or mala fides. The Revenue failed to adduce material demonstrating that the assessee's DCF inputs were inherently manipulated; subsequent variance between projections and actuals alone did not render the valuation unreliable. The tribunal noted shares were issued to existing group entities with no challenge to their identity or creditworthiness and that s.56(2)(viib) targets colourable inflows. AO erred in substituting NAV for DCF based solely on later divergence, so the addition was disallowed.
ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition under s.56(2)(viib), holding that valuation by DCF is a technical exercise to be respected absent proof of perversity or mala fides. The Revenue failed to adduce material demonstrating that the assessee's DCF inputs were inherently manipulated; subsequent variance between projections and actuals alone did not render the valuation unreliable. The tribunal noted shares were issued to existing group entities with no challenge to their identity or creditworthiness and that s.56(2)(viib) targets colourable inflows. AO erred in substituting NAV for DCF based solely on later divergence, so the addition was disallowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.