https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767656 The ITAT Delhi ruled on three key issues. First, regarding addition u/s 56(2)(viib), the tribunal held that the DCF method valuation by a Chartered Accountant showing fair market value at Rs. 106/- per share was acceptable, and the AO's attempt to establish discrepancies lacked proper basis. The addition was deleted as there was no over-valuation. Second, concerning addition u/s 68 for share capital premium, the tribunal found the AO's invocation erroneous since the subscribing companies used existing funds from previous years' investments, satisfying requirements of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness. Third, regarding disallowance u/s 14A r/w Rule 8D, the tribunal upheld the AO's findings that the assessee made fresh investments and sold shares, justifying expenditure disallowance for earning dividend income, as the assessee failed to rebut with evidence. en-us Wed, 19 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Feb 2026 10:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767656 The ITAT Delhi ruled on three key issues. First, regarding addition u/s 56(2)(viib), the tribunal held that the DCF method valuation by a Chartered Accountant showing fair market value at Rs. 106/- per share was acceptable, and the AO's attempt to establish discrepancies lacked proper basis. The addition was deleted as there was no over-valuation. Second, concerning addition u/s 68 for share capital premium, the tribunal found the AO's invocation erroneous since the subscribing companies used existing funds from previous years' investments, satisfying requirements of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness. Third, regarding disallowance u/s 14A r/w Rule 8D, the tribunal upheld the AO's findings that the assessee made fresh investments and sold shares, justifying expenditure disallowance for earning dividend income, as the assessee failed to rebut with evidence. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 19 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767656