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...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
