https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313558 The ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal regarding addition under Section 56(2)(viib) for excess share premium. The AO had rejected the valuation report and substituted projected figures used in DCF method with actual figures from subsequent years (FY 2015-16 and 2016-17) to determine fair market value. The ITAT held that substituting estimated figures with actual figures available at assessment time contradicts established precedents. Following Cinestaan Entertainment and Intelligrape Software decisions, the tribunal ruled that valuation is not exact science and cannot be done with arithmetic precision, emphasizing that recognized valuation methods by independent valuers should be accepted unless demonstrably wrong approach is shown. en-us Tue, 27 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Apr 2024 18:31:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313558 The ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal regarding addition under Section 56(2)(viib) for excess share premium. The AO had rejected the valuation report and substituted projected figures used in DCF method with actual figures from subsequent years (FY 2015-16 and 2016-17) to determine fair market value. The ITAT held that substituting estimated figures with actual figures available at assessment time contradicts established precedents. Following Cinestaan Entertainment and Intelligrape Software decisions, the tribunal ruled that valuation is not exact science and cannot be done with arithmetic precision, emphasizing that recognized valuation methods by independent valuers should be accepted unless demonstrably wrong approach is shown. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 27 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313558