Condonation of refiling delay refused where repeated defects, lack of diligence and vague explanations defeated the appeal against resolution plan app...
Page of 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
4381 to 4400 of 96536 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Issuance of shares to existing promoters was examined under section 56(2)(viib) with the central question being proper determination of fair market value (FMV). ITAT held that the assessing officer could not substitute the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method adopted under Rule 11UA and that the DCF valuation was based on reasonable assumptions, accordingly the premium was not excessive and the addition under section 56(2)(viib) was deleted. ITAT further held that no allegation of unaccounted funds existed so the related party infusion could not be taxed as deemed income; application of the NAV method produced an even higher FMV.
Issuance of shares to existing promoters was examined under section 56(2)(viib) with the central question being proper determination of fair market value (FMV). ITAT held that the assessing officer could not substitute the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method adopted under Rule 11UA and that the DCF valuation was based on reasonable assumptions, accordingly the premium was not excessive and the addition under section 56(2)(viib) was deleted. ITAT further held that no allegation of unaccounted funds existed so the related party infusion could not be taxed as deemed income; application of the NAV method produced an even higher FMV.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
