https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782875 ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the addition made under s. 56(2)(viib) on account of alleged excess share premium. The Tribunal held that the assessee had validly determined fair market value under the DCF method through an approved valuer/merchant banker, a method expressly recognized under Rule 11UA. The AO was not justified in discarding DCF merely because projected figures were not subsequently achieved or because the valuation report contained standard disclaimers. The AO also failed to refer the matter to a Valuation Officer despite doubts. Relying on binding HC precedent, the ITAT held the NAV-based substitution unsustainable and the s. 56(2)(viib) addition liable to be deleted. en-us Mon, 01 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Dec 2025 08:12:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782875 ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the addition made under s. 56(2)(viib) on account of alleged excess share premium. The Tribunal held that the assessee had validly determined fair market value under the DCF method through an approved valuer/merchant banker, a method expressly recognized under Rule 11UA. The AO was not justified in discarding DCF merely because projected figures were not subsequently achieved or because the valuation report contained standard disclaimers. The AO also failed to refer the matter to a Valuation Officer despite doubts. Relying on binding HC precedent, the ITAT held the NAV-based substitution unsustainable and the s. 56(2)(viib) addition liable to be deleted. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 01 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782875