https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765270 The ITAT Chennai remanded the matter back to the AO for proper valuation of shares under Section 56(2)(viib). The tribunal found that the assessee's valuation report was flawed as it failed to consider loan liabilities, treating them incorrectly as share capital advances. The CIT(A)'s direction restricting the AO's scope of enquiry to only two specific valuers was deemed unjustified, as it effectively deleted the addition without giving the AO proper options for independent valuation. The tribunal emphasized that the onus was on the assessee to justify share valuation and directed the AO to undertake proper fact-finding to determine fair market value as required under the statutory provisions. en-us Tue, 03 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Jan 2025 09:00:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765270 The ITAT Chennai remanded the matter back to the AO for proper valuation of shares under Section 56(2)(viib). The tribunal found that the assessee's valuation report was flawed as it failed to consider loan liabilities, treating them incorrectly as share capital advances. The CIT(A)'s direction restricting the AO's scope of enquiry to only two specific valuers was deemed unjustified, as it effectively deleted the addition without giving the AO proper options for independent valuation. The tribunal emphasized that the onus was on the assessee to justify share valuation and directed the AO to undertake proper fact-finding to determine fair market value as required under the statutory provisions. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 03 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765270