Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
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.