https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772046 The ITAT Delhi remanded the case back to the AO for fresh assessment regarding addition under section 56(2)(vii)(c) where the assessee acquired shares below fair market value. The AO had made additions based on stock exchange trading values, which CIT(A) deleted. ITAT found that crucial details were missing from lower authorities' orders including lock-in period of shares, contents of the Share Sales and Purchase Agreement dated 21.01.2015, classification of shares, and impact of convertible warrants issued to outgoing promoter. The tribunal held that mere lock-in status doesn't automatically require valuation under Rule 11UA for unquoted shares. Revenue's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. en-us Fri, 30 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Jun 2025 08:50:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772046 The ITAT Delhi remanded the case back to the AO for fresh assessment regarding addition under section 56(2)(vii)(c) where the assessee acquired shares below fair market value. The AO had made additions based on stock exchange trading values, which CIT(A) deleted. ITAT found that crucial details were missing from lower authorities' orders including lock-in period of shares, contents of the Share Sales and Purchase Agreement dated 21.01.2015, classification of shares, and impact of convertible warrants issued to outgoing promoter. The tribunal held that mere lock-in status doesn't automatically require valuation under Rule 11UA for unquoted shares. Revenue's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 30 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772046