https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777090 ITAT upheld the appellate deletion of an addition under s.56(2)(viib), holding that Rule 11UA(2) permitted the assessee to choose either NAV or DCF for valuing unquoted shares and the AO had no power to substitute the chosen method. The AO rejected the assessee's DCF-based merchant banker report without producing an alternative valuation by an authorized valuer and merely questioned projections. Absent an alternate report, ITAT found no error in CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the revenue's appeal. en-us Wed, 20 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Aug 2025 08:31:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777090 ITAT upheld the appellate deletion of an addition under s.56(2)(viib), holding that Rule 11UA(2) permitted the assessee to choose either NAV or DCF for valuing unquoted shares and the AO had no power to substitute the chosen method. The AO rejected the assessee's DCF-based merchant banker report without producing an alternative valuation by an authorized valuer and merely questioned projections. Absent an alternate report, ITAT found no error in CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the revenue's appeal. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 20 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777090