<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (10) TMI 39 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779243</link>
    <description>ITAT upheld the assessee&#039;s valuation of unquoted shares using the DCF method under Rule 11UA(2)(b), rejecting the AO&#039;s and CIT(A)&#039;s addition under section 56(2)(viib) that treated share consideration as excess over fair market value. The Tribunal found the assessee had the option to select the valuation method, and the AO lacked jurisdiction to alter that choice; therefore the addition was deleted and the appeal allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2025 09:07:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=855611" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (10) TMI 39 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779243</link>
      <description>ITAT upheld the assessee&#039;s valuation of unquoted shares using the DCF method under Rule 11UA(2)(b), rejecting the AO&#039;s and CIT(A)&#039;s addition under section 56(2)(viib) that treated share consideration as excess over fair market value. The Tribunal found the assessee had the option to select the valuation method, and the AO lacked jurisdiction to alter that choice; therefore the addition was deleted and the appeal allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779243</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>