Clean slate principle extinguishes uncrystallised operational claims and bars continuation of pending recovery and arbitral proceedings after plan app...
Works contract classification governs composite layout-development contracts where VAT-paid goods are transferred alongside construction and infrastru...
Specified income tax exemption for pollution control body remains conditional on non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return filin...
Jurisdictional facts in certificate-of-origin discrepancies can support customs show-cause proceedings, leaving factual explanations for departmental ...
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.