https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379202 The Tribunal held in favor of the assessee, ruling that the valuation method adopted was valid and accepted by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) was not allowed to retroactively impose a different valuation method prescribed under Rule 11U and 11UA. The Tribunal found the valuation substantiated by the assessee's report and past transactions, rejecting the CIT(A)'s basis for disallowance. The enhancement made by the CIT(A) was deleted, and the assessee's appeals for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 were allowed. The issue of enhancement jurisdiction was considered academic and left unresolved. en-us Fri, 15 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Jul 2026 17:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379202 The Tribunal held in favor of the assessee, ruling that the valuation method adopted was valid and accepted by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) was not allowed to retroactively impose a different valuation method prescribed under Rule 11U and 11UA. The Tribunal found the valuation substantiated by the assessee's report and past transactions, rejecting the CIT(A)'s basis for disallowance. The enhancement made by the CIT(A) was deleted, and the assessee's appeals for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 were allowed. The issue of enhancement jurisdiction was considered academic and left unresolved. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 15 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379202