Minimum alternate tax exclusions for pre-amendment banking companies and expatriate Indian branch salaries remain outside head office expenditure limi...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1101 to 1120 of 95999 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
