https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400360 The Tribunal remanded the case to the AO, directing a reassessment of the valuation report using the DCF method, as initially chosen by the assessee. The AO must not reject this method and should provide the assessee an opportunity to substantiate the valuation with empirical data or industry standards. The Tribunal emphasized avoiding reliance on conjectures and unrelated case law, and the AO must reconsider the correct valuation period. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with the AO tasked to either review the valuation himself or involve an independent valuer, ensuring adherence to Rule 11UA. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were not specifically addressed. en-us Mon, 02 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Nov 2024 11:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400360 The Tribunal remanded the case to the AO, directing a reassessment of the valuation report using the DCF method, as initially chosen by the assessee. The AO must not reject this method and should provide the assessee an opportunity to substantiate the valuation with empirical data or industry standards. The Tribunal emphasized avoiding reliance on conjectures and unrelated case law, and the AO must reconsider the correct valuation period. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with the AO tasked to either review the valuation himself or involve an independent valuer, ensuring adherence to Rule 11UA. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were not specifically addressed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 02 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400360