https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789765 An assessee valuing compulsorily convertible preference shares under the Discounted Cash Flow method permitted by Rule 11UA(2) could not have the addition under section 56(2)(viib) sustained merely because the Assessing Officer compared projected figures with later actual results. The record showed that a valuation report, feasibility material and supporting details were furnished, and the DCF method is inherently projection-based. In the absence of any specific defect, error or inaccuracy in the valuation report, the revenue authorities could not discard the chosen method or substitute their own view of valuation. The addition was therefore deleted and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Fri, 10 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Apr 2026 08:03:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789765 An assessee valuing compulsorily convertible preference shares under the Discounted Cash Flow method permitted by Rule 11UA(2) could not have the addition under section 56(2)(viib) sustained merely because the Assessing Officer compared projected figures with later actual results. The record showed that a valuation report, feasibility material and supporting details were furnished, and the DCF method is inherently projection-based. In the absence of any specific defect, error or inaccuracy in the valuation report, the revenue authorities could not discard the chosen method or substitute their own view of valuation. The addition was therefore deleted and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 10 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789765