Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return filing...
Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT upheld the reopening u/s 147 and sustained the addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) treating excess share premium as taxable consideration. The Tribunal found the Chartered Accountant's DCF certificate defective and unreliable-projections were unverified, optimistic, and inconsistent with actual performance-thereby justifying the AO's rejection of the DCF method. Applying the NAV method, the AO's FMV determination (Rs.10 per share) was upheld as reasonable in light of the valuer's failure to follow ICAI guidance and to furnish requisite cash-flow, discount-rate and terminal-value analyses. The CIT(A)'s conclusions were affirmed and the assessee's appeal dismissed.
ITAT upheld the reopening u/s 147 and sustained the addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) treating excess share premium as taxable consideration. The Tribunal found the Chartered Accountant's DCF certificate defective and unreliable-projections were unverified, optimistic, and inconsistent with actual performance-thereby justifying the AO's rejection of the DCF method. Applying the NAV method, the AO's FMV determination (Rs.10 per share) was upheld as reasonable in light of the valuer's failure to follow ICAI guidance and to furnish requisite cash-flow, discount-rate and terminal-value analyses. The CIT(A)'s conclusions were affirmed and the assessee's appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.