Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
ITAT held that the addition u/s 56(2)(viib) in respect of share premium received by the assessee-company is unsustainable. It found no allegation or evidence from the AO of any unaccounted money being introduced, and the genuineness of the share subscription, routed through banking channels and utilised for repayment of loans, stood established. ITAT ruled that the lower authorities could not disregard the assessee's DCF-based valuation and registered valuer's report by mechanically substituting guideline value for land and ignoring brand valuation. It emphasised that the statute requires determination of fair market value, not adoption of guideline rates, and disallowed the AO/CIT(A)'s change of valuation method. Consequently, the valuation adopted by the assessee was upheld and the assessee's appeal allowed in full.
ITAT held that the addition u/s 56(2)(viib) in respect of share premium received by the assessee-company is unsustainable. It found no allegation or evidence from the AO of any unaccounted money being introduced, and the genuineness of the share subscription, routed through banking channels and utilised for repayment of loans, stood established. ITAT ruled that the lower authorities could not disregard the assessee's DCF-based valuation and registered valuer's report by mechanically substituting guideline value for land and ignoring brand valuation. It emphasised that the statute requires determination of fair market value, not adoption of guideline rates, and disallowed the AO/CIT(A)'s change of valuation method. Consequently, the valuation adopted by the assessee was upheld and the assessee's appeal allowed in full.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
