https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758948 The ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal against additions made under Section 68 and enhancements under Section 56(2)(viib). The AO had added the entire share premium and share capital for lack of documentary evidence regarding investor identity, creditworthiness, and transaction genuineness. The CIT(A) upheld these additions and enhanced income. However, ITAT held that both lower authorities failed to follow Rule 11UA, which gives assessees the option to choose valuation methods for unquoted equity shares. The assessee had submitted proper valuation reports using NAV/DCF method as required, and the AO provided no reasoning for rejecting this valuation. The tribunal applied the legal maxim "Expressio unis est exclusio alterius" and deleted all additions. en-us Thu, 05 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Sep 2024 08:00:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758948 The ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal against additions made under Section 68 and enhancements under Section 56(2)(viib). The AO had added the entire share premium and share capital for lack of documentary evidence regarding investor identity, creditworthiness, and transaction genuineness. The CIT(A) upheld these additions and enhanced income. However, ITAT held that both lower authorities failed to follow Rule 11UA, which gives assessees the option to choose valuation methods for unquoted equity shares. The assessee had submitted proper valuation reports using NAV/DCF method as required, and the AO provided no reasoning for rejecting this valuation. The tribunal applied the legal maxim "Expressio unis est exclusio alterius" and deleted all additions. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 05 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758948