Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
