https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788515 Under section 56(2)(viib) read with Rule 11UA, the assessee's choice of a recognised Discounted Cash Flow method for valuing unquoted shares could not be displaced merely because the Assessing Officer preferred Net Asset Value. The valuation was supported by a Chartered Accountant's report and had to be judged on the information available on the valuation date; later variance between projections and actual results did not by itself invalidate the DCF method, which is based on estimates and assumptions. As no legally sustainable basis was shown to treat the share premium as excessive on a nil or NAV basis, the substitution of the method was unsustainable and the addition was deleted. en-us Fri, 20 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Mar 2026 08:12:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788515 Under section 56(2)(viib) read with Rule 11UA, the assessee's choice of a recognised Discounted Cash Flow method for valuing unquoted shares could not be displaced merely because the Assessing Officer preferred Net Asset Value. The valuation was supported by a Chartered Accountant's report and had to be judged on the information available on the valuation date; later variance between projections and actual results did not by itself invalidate the DCF method, which is based on estimates and assumptions. As no legally sustainable basis was shown to treat the share premium as excessive on a nil or NAV basis, the substitution of the method was unsustainable and the addition was deleted. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 20 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788515