<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>High Court Upholds ITAT&#039;s Decision on Share Premium Valuation u/s 56(2)(vii)(b); No Flaws Found in Method Used.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=57044</link>
    <description>Addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) - share premium - The valuation is a question of fact which would depend upon appreciation of material or evidence. The methodology adopted by the Respondent-Assessee, accepted by the learned ITAT, is a conclusion of fact drawn on the basis of material and facts available. The test laid down by the Courts for interfering with the findings of a valuer is not satisfied in the present case, as the Respondent-Assessee adopted a recognized method of valuation and Appellant-Revenue is unable to show that the assessee adopted a demonstrably wrong approach, or that the method of valuation was made on a wholly erroneous basis, or that it committed a mistake which goes to the root of the valuation process. - HC</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 06 Mar 2021 12:21:37 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Mar 2021 12:21:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=638222" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>High Court Upholds ITAT&#039;s Decision on Share Premium Valuation u/s 56(2)(vii)(b); No Flaws Found in Method Used.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=57044</link>
      <description>Addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) - share premium - The valuation is a question of fact which would depend upon appreciation of material or evidence. The methodology adopted by the Respondent-Assessee, accepted by the learned ITAT, is a conclusion of fact drawn on the basis of material and facts available. The test laid down by the Courts for interfering with the findings of a valuer is not satisfied in the present case, as the Respondent-Assessee adopted a recognized method of valuation and Appellant-Revenue is unable to show that the assessee adopted a demonstrably wrong approach, or that the method of valuation was made on a wholly erroneous basis, or that it committed a mistake which goes to the root of the valuation process. - HC</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 06 Mar 2021 12:21:37 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=57044</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>