https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93636 ITAT held that the AO's rejection of the assessee's DCF valuation under s.56(2)(viib) read with r.11UA was impermissible absent pinpointing of specific errors; the DCF methodology adopted by the assessee was a permissible valuation and cannot be supplanted by AO's unsupported conclusion. The Tribunal further held that where substantial subscriptions emanated from a non-resident subscriber, s.56(2)(viib) could not sustain additions in respect of those subscriptions. AO's subsequent addition under s.68 was unsustainable because AO did not challenge identity, genuineness or creditworthiness nor discharge the onus to disprove the assessee's explanation. The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs.60,06,500 and allowed the grounds. en-us Wed, 29 Oct 2025 08:16:37 +0530 Wed, 29 Oct 2025 08:16:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93636 ITAT held that the AO's rejection of the assessee's DCF valuation under s.56(2)(viib) read with r.11UA was impermissible absent pinpointing of specific errors; the DCF methodology adopted by the assessee was a permissible valuation and cannot be supplanted by AO's unsupported conclusion. The Tribunal further held that where substantial subscriptions emanated from a non-resident subscriber, s.56(2)(viib) could not sustain additions in respect of those subscriptions. AO's subsequent addition under s.68 was unsustainable because AO did not challenge identity, genuineness or creditworthiness nor discharge the onus to disprove the assessee's explanation. The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs.60,06,500 and allowed the grounds. Highlights Income Tax Wed, 29 Oct 2025 08:16:37 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93636