Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 
