https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398902 HC held for the assessee, finding the AO erred in discarding the DCF valuation without identifying flaws and in revaluing assets by NAV to inflate share value under s.56(2)(viib). Tribunal correctly treated projected revenues as permissible estimates and found no material of fabrication. The court rejected Revenue's reliance on a prior remand decision based on the assessee's concession, and concluded the DCF-based share valuation need not be replaced by AO's NAV re-assessment. en-us Mon, 21 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Aug 2025 12:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398902 HC held for the assessee, finding the AO erred in discarding the DCF valuation without identifying flaws and in revaluing assets by NAV to inflate share value under s.56(2)(viib). Tribunal correctly treated projected revenues as permissible estimates and found no material of fabrication. The court rejected Revenue's reliance on a prior remand decision based on the assessee's concession, and concluded the DCF-based share valuation need not be replaced by AO's NAV re-assessment. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 21 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398902