https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366667 ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal partly, deleting the addition made by the AO for alleged under-valuation of shares. The Tribunal held that valuation computed under Rule 11UA(2) must be adopted where it yields a higher fair market value and the AO cannot reject such valuation absent the AO-satisfaction route under Explanation (a)(ii) to s.56(2)(viib). The AO's suspicion that loans converted to share application/premium funds concealed unaccounted income was held irrelevant, and the AO's rejection of the DCF-based valuation lacked justification. en-us Thu, 12 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Aug 2025 12:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366667 ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal partly, deleting the addition made by the AO for alleged under-valuation of shares. The Tribunal held that valuation computed under Rule 11UA(2) must be adopted where it yields a higher fair market value and the AO cannot reject such valuation absent the AO-satisfaction route under Explanation (a)(ii) to s.56(2)(viib). The AO's suspicion that loans converted to share application/premium funds concealed unaccounted income was held irrelevant, and the AO's rejection of the DCF-based valuation lacked justification. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 12 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366667