https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782135 ITAT Chennai allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that Section 56(2)(viib) was inapplicable as the AO and CIT(A) had not established any infusion of unaccounted money and the share issues were genuine rights and preference issues to existing resident and non-resident shareholders through banking channels. It held that "fair market value" under Section 56(2)(viib) cannot be equated with guideline value and that the AO/CIT(A) could not substitute the assessee's registered valuer's market-based method with a different, unsupported method. The Tribunal upheld the higher land and brand valuations adopted by the assessee, finding the rejection of intangible valuation and reliance solely on guideline value unjustified. en-us Tue, 11 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Nov 2025 08:55:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782135 ITAT Chennai allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that Section 56(2)(viib) was inapplicable as the AO and CIT(A) had not established any infusion of unaccounted money and the share issues were genuine rights and preference issues to existing resident and non-resident shareholders through banking channels. It held that "fair market value" under Section 56(2)(viib) cannot be equated with guideline value and that the AO/CIT(A) could not substitute the assessee's registered valuer's market-based method with a different, unsupported method. The Tribunal upheld the higher land and brand valuations adopted by the assessee, finding the rejection of intangible valuation and reliance solely on guideline value unjustified. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 11 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782135