Authority rules B+G+31 service apartment is commercial building construction, not multi-storey residential for tax classification under RERA definitio...
Resale price method upheld for distribution; assessee's margins accepted and certain transfer-pricing adjustments deleted due to documented reimbursem...
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 4824 
Join Channel 
