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...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
