https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751655 ITAT Delhi allowed appeals against additions under sections 68 and 56(2)(viib) for unexplained share premium and capital enhancement. The assessee provided investor details including PAN, addresses, and ROC particulars, but AO failed to conduct proper verification from publicly available MCA data. Court held that once identity, creditworthiness, and transaction genuineness are established through documents, additions cannot be made without contrary material from revenue. Additionally, CIT(A) erred in rejecting assessee's fair market valuation computed under Rule 11UA(2) using NAV/DCF method without providing reasoning or contrary evidence. Following legal maxim "Expressio unis est exclusio alterius," statutory valuation procedures must be followed as prescribed. en-us Thu, 18 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Apr 2024 10:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751655 ITAT Delhi allowed appeals against additions under sections 68 and 56(2)(viib) for unexplained share premium and capital enhancement. The assessee provided investor details including PAN, addresses, and ROC particulars, but AO failed to conduct proper verification from publicly available MCA data. Court held that once identity, creditworthiness, and transaction genuineness are established through documents, additions cannot be made without contrary material from revenue. Additionally, CIT(A) erred in rejecting assessee's fair market valuation computed under Rule 11UA(2) using NAV/DCF method without providing reasoning or contrary evidence. Following legal maxim "Expressio unis est exclusio alterius," statutory valuation procedures must be followed as prescribed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 18 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751655