2023 (9) TMI 797

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....IT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8 crores made by the Assessing Officer u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] holding that the DCF Method is the correct method for valuation of shares. 3. Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused. Relevant documentary evidence brought on record duly considered in light of Rule 18(6) of the ITAT Rules. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee company is a part of Max Group of hospitals. The assessee is a subsidiary company of Max Healthcare Institute Ltd [MHIL], which is a subsidiary of Max India Ltd. 5. Return for the year under consideration was filed on 29.09.2005 declaring current year's loss of Rs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....houghtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute that the valuation of the assessee is supported by valuation report from a technical expert who has adopted DCF method, which is one of the recognized methods u/r 11UA of the Rules. Therefore, the Assessing Officer erred in rejecting the method. 12. On a perusal of the relevant sections read with the Rules, we are of the view that the action of the Assessing Officer in substituting the method of valuation is beyond jurisdiction. We are of the view that DCF Method is based on projections which are based on factors like growth of the company, economic/market conditions, business conditions, expected demand and supply, cost of capital and host of other factors....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....option to conduct its own valuation and determine FMV on the basis of either the DCF or NAV Method. The Respondent-Assessee being a start-up company adopted DCF method to value its shares. This was carried out on the basis of information and material available on the date of valuation and projection of future revenue. There is no dispute that methodology adopted by the Respondent-Assessee has been done applying a recognized and accepted method. Since the performance did not match the projections, Revenue sought to challenge the valuation, on that footing. This approach lacks material foundation and is irrational since the valuation is intrinsically based on projections which can be affected by various factors. We cannot lose sight of the fa....