https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466348 Valuation dispute concerned issuance of shares between a holding company and its subsidiary where the assessee used DCF valuation as mandated by RBI for non-resident participation; the tribunal accepted that pre-transaction registered valuation and RBI guidance justified the DCF choice and concluded section 56(2)(viib) did not apply, ruling for the assessee. On imputed mixed application of DCF and NAV by the assessing officer and the appellate authority's adoption of valuation without hearing, the tribunal found breach of natural justice and improper method choice. A separate addition for prior-period reclassification expenses was set aside and remitted for de novo readjudication; interest was held consequential. en-us Wed, 19 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Feb 2026 20:17:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466348 Valuation dispute concerned issuance of shares between a holding company and its subsidiary where the assessee used DCF valuation as mandated by RBI for non-resident participation; the tribunal accepted that pre-transaction registered valuation and RBI guidance justified the DCF choice and concluded section 56(2)(viib) did not apply, ruling for the assessee. On imputed mixed application of DCF and NAV by the assessing officer and the appellate authority's adoption of valuation without hearing, the tribunal found breach of natural justice and improper method choice. A separate addition for prior-period reclassification expenses was set aside and remitted for de novo readjudication; interest was held consequential. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 19 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466348