Country of Origin Certificates and declared transaction value supported preferential customs exemption where authenticity and invoice prices remained ...
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...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
381 to 400 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Under section 56(2)(viib), once an assessee adopts the prescribed DCF method under Rule 11UA for valuing unquoted equity shares, the Assessing Officer cannot discard that valuation merely because subsequent actual results differ from the original projections. The Tribunal noted that DCF valuation is inherently projection-based and cannot be reworked by substituting later actual figures, nor can the Officer switch to NAV valuation when that method was not chosen by the assessee. As the assessee relied on a qualified valuation report and the Revenue showed no cogent material of perversity, the share premium addition was deleted and the appeal was allowed.
Under section 56(2)(viib), once an assessee adopts the prescribed DCF method under Rule 11UA for valuing unquoted equity shares, the Assessing Officer cannot discard that valuation merely because subsequent actual results differ from the original projections. The Tribunal noted that DCF valuation is inherently projection-based and cannot be reworked by substituting later actual figures, nor can the Officer switch to NAV valuation when that method was not chosen by the assessee. As the assessee relied on a qualified valuation report and the Revenue showed no cogent material of perversity, the share premium addition was deleted and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.