Tax appeal allowed: AO exceeded s.144C DRP mandate by introducing new findings and recharacterising non-resident receipts as permanent establishment i...
Anonymized petitioner gets partial relief: bank guarantee quashed, PVC-coated fabric released under reduced conditions while valuation proceedings con...
ITAT held that the AO's rejection of the assessee's DCF valuation under s.56(2)(viib) read with r.11UA was impermissible absent pinpointing of specific errors; the DCF methodology adopted by the assessee was a permissible valuation and cannot be supplanted by AO's unsupported conclusion. The Tribunal further held that where substantial subscriptions emanated from a non-resident subscriber, s.56(2)(viib) could not sustain additions in respect of those subscriptions. AO's subsequent addition under s.68 was unsustainable because AO did not challenge identity, genuineness or creditworthiness nor discharge the onus to disprove the assessee's explanation. The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs.60,06,500 and allowed the grounds.
ITAT held that the AO's rejection of the assessee's DCF valuation under s.56(2)(viib) read with r.11UA was impermissible absent pinpointing of specific errors; the DCF methodology adopted by the assessee was a permissible valuation and cannot be supplanted by AO's unsupported conclusion. The Tribunal further held that where substantial subscriptions emanated from a non-resident subscriber, s.56(2)(viib) could not sustain additions in respect of those subscriptions. AO's subsequent addition under s.68 was unsustainable because AO did not challenge identity, genuineness or creditworthiness nor discharge the onus to disprove the assessee's explanation. The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs.60,06,500 and allowed the grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
