Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
