Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Section 56(2)(viib) and Rule 11UA require fair market value to be determined afresh each time unquoted equity shares are issued, so a valuation report from a prior year cannot automatically justify a later premium. A joint venture agreement may govern subscription terms between parties, but it cannot displace the statutory valuation requirement for income computation. On the facts, the assessee had not obtained a fresh DCF valuation for the year under appeal, and the AO had not secured an independent valuation. The earlier accepted report could not be rejected on the basis adopted by the AO, but the premium had to be examined again on a fresh valuation basis. The matter was remanded to the AO for reconsideration in accordance with law.
Section 56(2)(viib) and Rule 11UA require fair market value to be determined afresh each time unquoted equity shares are issued, so a valuation report from a prior year cannot automatically justify a later premium. A joint venture agreement may govern subscription terms between parties, but it cannot displace the statutory valuation requirement for income computation. On the facts, the assessee had not obtained a fresh DCF valuation for the year under appeal, and the AO had not secured an independent valuation. The earlier accepted report could not be rejected on the basis adopted by the AO, but the premium had to be examined again on a fresh valuation basis. The matter was remanded to the AO for reconsideration in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
