<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Share valuation under section 56(2)(viib) must be done afresh for each issue of unquoted equity shares, the ITAT held.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99250</link>
    <description>Section 56(2)(viib) and Rule 11UA require fair market value to be determined afresh each time unquoted equity shares are issued, so a valuation report from a prior year cannot automatically justify a later premium. A joint venture agreement may govern subscription terms between parties, but it cannot displace the statutory valuation requirement for income computation. On the facts, the assessee had not obtained a fresh DCF valuation for the year under appeal, and the AO had not secured an independent valuation. The earlier accepted report could not be rejected on the basis adopted by the AO, but the premium had to be examined again on a fresh valuation basis. The matter was remanded to the AO for reconsideration in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 07:29:33 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 07:29:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=898723" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Share valuation under section 56(2)(viib) must be done afresh for each issue of unquoted equity shares, the ITAT held.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99250</link>
      <description>Section 56(2)(viib) and Rule 11UA require fair market value to be determined afresh each time unquoted equity shares are issued, so a valuation report from a prior year cannot automatically justify a later premium. A joint venture agreement may govern subscription terms between parties, but it cannot displace the statutory valuation requirement for income computation. On the facts, the assessee had not obtained a fresh DCF valuation for the year under appeal, and the AO had not secured an independent valuation. The earlier accepted report could not be rejected on the basis adopted by the AO, but the premium had to be examined again on a fresh valuation basis. The matter was remanded to the AO for reconsideration in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 07:29:33 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99250</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>