← All Phrases

“valuation of shares”

Special Rate ProvisionsRule 11UARule 11UA508 judgments

The decision most relied on for valuation of shares is PCIT v. Chain House International (P) Ltd. (98 Taxmann.com 47), cited in 104 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on valuation of shares

PCIT v. Chain House International (P) Ltd.
98 Taxmann.com 47 · 2018 · High Court
104
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot arbitrarily reject a share valuation report prepared by an expert using recognized methods like NAV or DCF for the purpose of Section 56(2)(viib) without providing valid reasons to demonstrate its perversity or unreasonableness.

CIT v. George Henderson & Co. Ltd.
66 ITR 622 · 1967 · Supreme Court
82
citing judgments

The 'full value of consideration' for computing capital gains under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (or its predecessor, Section 12B of the 1922 Act), means the actual price bargained for and received or accrued by the parties. It does not refer to the market value or any notional value of the asset transferred.

Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd. v. PCIT
164 DTR 257 · 2018 · High Court
69
citing judgments

An assessee has the option to choose either the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method or the Net Asset Value (NAV) method for share valuation under Section 56(2)(viib) read with Rule 11UA. The Assessing Officer cannot substitute the chosen method or value without identifying a specific error in the assessee's valuation.

CIT v. Green Infra Ltd.
78 Taxmann.com 340 · 2017 · High Court
56
citing judgments

The valuation of shares is not relevant for determining the genuineness of a transaction under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Interest income earned on the deposit of surplus funds is taxable as business income.

CIT v. Bank of Baroda
262 ITR 334 · 2003 · High Court
51
citing judgments

An assessee is entitled to claim a deduction for the depreciation in the value of investments, such as shares and securities, if these investments are valued at cost or market value, whichever is lower, consistent with the real income principle.

PCIT v. Cinestaan Entertainment Pvt Ltd.
433 ITR 82 · 2021 · High Court
49
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot reject the share valuation method adopted by an assessee under Section 56(2)(viib) if it adheres to prescribed methodologies and commercial prudence. The valuation cannot be challenged based on future performance or by substituting another method.

Jeevan Investment & Finance (P.) Ltd. v. CIT
88 Taxmann.com 552 · 2017 · High Court
37
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer's failure to conduct necessary inquiries renders the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, justifying revision under Section 263.

Innoviti Payment Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO
102 Taxmann.com 59 · 2019 · ITAT
35
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer (AO) cannot discard the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method for share valuation if the assessee opts for it as per Rule 11UA(2). The AO must record reasons for not accepting the assessee's valuation report and obtain a fresh report before proceeding with their own valuation, but cannot change the method chosen by the assessee.

Judgments citing valuation of shares

ITO Corporate Ward 4(3), Chennai vs. Kaino Infra Development Private Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1491/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1491/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) The Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S. Kaino Infra Development Corporate Ward-4(3) Pvt Ltd., Chennai-34. 37, Ttk Road, Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018. Pan: Aadcr 5655E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit For Mr. V.Vikekananthan, Cit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. G.Seetharaman, C.A. & Mr.S.Sundararaman, C.A सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Chennai Dated 31.01.2019 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A) Is Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Allowing The Assessee'S Appeal By Stating That The Assessee Company Has Sufficiently & Reasonably Justified The Share Premium Received Of Rs.168.60 Crores For The Year.

For Appellant: Mr. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT for Mr. V.Vikekananthan, CITFor Respondent: Mr. G.Seetharaman, C.A. &
Section 56(2)(vii)

imaginary or superfluous one . 5.1 The Ld. CIT(A) failed to notice that the share premium received by the assessee company and the valuation of shares were not or scientific basis and was not a genuine investment for the purpose o business, as the capital contribution by the assessee company ... owned by the partnership firm and if you consider possible revenue generation from the project, cash flow projections considered by the assessee for valuation of shares under DCF method is much below intrinsic value of share capital held by the assessee in partnership firm. Therefore, submitted that allotment of equity

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. M/S Bioworth India Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 679/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, C.A by RevenueFor Respondent: Shri K Sankar Ganesh, JCIT (DR) by
Section 133(6)Section 37

assessee has submitted that he sold this shares after taking report from C.A which shows the price of the share at Rs.10. The valuation of shares was done on the basis of net reliable value and by not taking the book value of the company even though the company possesses ... intrinsic value differs from valuer to valuer. The assessee had followed the NRV Method which is one of the recgonized methods of valuation of shares. Reference may be made to the following judgments wherein the judicial forums have held that once the assessee has adopted one of the recognized methods

DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Green Infra Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7529/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vartik ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 250Section 260ASection 56(1)Section 61Section 78(2)

premium, the Return of assessee company filed for year under consideration as well as for earlier years showed consistent losses and hence the valuation of shares done adopting DCF without considering the Income Tax Liability of preceding years was meaningless, as once these liabilities were taken into consideration the Share

ITO-12(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Mystical Infratech Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4266/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shr Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.4266/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Income Tax Officer- M/S. Mystical Infaratech Pvt. Ltd., 12(3)(4),Room No.147A, 1St बिधम/ Ground Floor, D. B.House,, Floor ,Ayankar Bhavan, Vs. Gen A.K.Vaidya Marg, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 Mumbai-400 063. 020. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aagcm1049J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri. Nimesh Yadav( Cit Dr) प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. A.K.Ghosh , Pooja Ramder , Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 22.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 19.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against Order Dated 30.03.2017, Passed By Cit (Appeals)-20 Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) For Ay 2011-12. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: Shri. Nimesh Yadav( CIT DR)For Respondent: Shri. A.K.Ghosh , Pooja
Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(viia)

show cause notice as on 31st March 2010 of the share of both the parties and rejected the assessee’s working of valuation of shares. He has also noted the chronology of events for 5 I.T.A. No. 4266/Mum/2017 M/s. Mystical Infaratech Pvt. Ltd redemption /transfer /allotment of shares in both ... done on09-07-2010 & 03-08- 2010. 7 I.T.A. No. 4266/Mum/2017 M/s. Mystical Infaratech Pvt. Ltd 6. Accordingly, AO computed the valuation of shares in respect of the 2 companies by applying net asset value method (NAV). For SLS shares, he computed the fair market value per equity shares

ACIT (TDS -2(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sula Vineyards Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 12/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Acit (Tds)-2(2), Sula Vineyards Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 322, Mtnl Office, 901, Hubtown Solaries, N.S. Cumballa Hill, Vs. Phadke Marg, Mumbai-400026. Mumbai-400029. Pan No. Aabcn 7126 Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Niraj Singh, Ar Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/09/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj Singh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Section 201(1)

response to above said query, the assessee has filed its In response to above said query, the assessee has filed its working of valuation of shares and hothing else. It is fact that working of valuation of shares and hothing else. It is fact that working of valuation of shares ... emphasizing on the To avoid the tax liability the assessee emphasizing on the To avoid the tax liability the assessee emphasizing on the valuation of shares rather adopting its market value of shares. valuation of shares rather adopting its market value of valuation of shares rather adopting its market value

M/S. Ukn Properties Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1739/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 56(2)(vii)

fair market value of a property, other than immovable property, shall be determined in the following manner, namely,— Page 15 of 17 **** **** (c) valuation of shares and securities,— **** (b) the fair market value of unquoted equity shares shall be the value, on the valuation date, of such unquoted equity shares

M/S. Waterline Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 388/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Waterline Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 10Th Floor, Gamma Block, Of Income Tax, Sigma Soft Tech Park No.07, Circle 7(1)(2), Airport Varthur Road, Bangalore. Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aaacw 8059N Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Pranav Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals)-7, Bengaluru Dated 27.3.2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised 18 Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Page 2 Of 20

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 271Section 40Section 56(2)(viib)

assessment year 2013-14. 2. The assessee has raised 18 grounds pertaining to the following issues:- Page 2 of 20 (i) Method of valuation of shares (ii) Disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i)/(ia). 3. The assessee is engaged in the development of residential and commercial projects and ALILA Hotel ... assessee is a reasonable cause and we therefore condone the delay and consider the appeal for adjudication. Page 5 of 20 Valuation of shares 8. The AO during the course of assessment noticed that the assessee has received share premium on allotment of shares to the tune of Rs.33

Luhariwala Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 10 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2251/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bleluhariwala Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd., V. Acit – 10(2)(1) A-204, Corporate Centre Premises Room No. 509, 5Th Floor Andheri Kurla Road, Marol Pipeline Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400059 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacl0784F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashok Bansali Department By : Shri Mehul Jain

For Appellant: Shri Ashok BansaliFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 131Section 143(2)

genuine and revenue authorities cannot accept part of the investment as genuine and rest of the investment as non-genuine. The valuation of shares submitted by the assessee justifies 15 Luhariwala Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd., the allotment of shares with premium and it is also fact on record that Assessing ... Officer has not doubted the valuation of shares in this case. Therefore, we do not find any reason to uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) who has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by applying preponderance of human probabilities. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

Paath Financial Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 15 (1)(4), Mumbai

ITA 6833/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Mr.Poojan Mehta.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Soumendu Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

face value of Rs. 10/- each at a premium of Rs.91/- each and the assessee was required to explain the basis for valuation of shares to determine/ Paath Financial Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. substantiate the premium charged. In compliance, the assessee has filed explanations by letter dated 22.11.2017 mentioning ... called for the details by questionnaire dated 03.11.2017 to prove creditworthiness and genuineness of the subscribers of shares. The AO dealt on the valuation of share premium and has made a details observation that the share premium cannot be justified and the assessee has not proved the creditworthiness and relied

Dy Cir 11 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Tirumal Trading & Investment Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 7647/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

erred in allowing the short term capital loss claim of assessee of Rs. 276,00,000/- without considering the fact that the valuation of shares and its consequent change of ownership was not proved by assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-4(1), Central Range-4, Mumbai vs. M/S.Runwal Projects Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, the additions in all the 3 assessment years deleted by Ld. CIT (A) are confirmed and the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5970/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5970/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 634/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6027/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Respondent: Shri Jayant Jhaveri, Ld. DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 68

high premium received. The assessee had filed certain documents like Valuation report by CA and certificate by E&Y to justify the valuation of shares and premium but such valuation report has been rejected by the AO on the ground that E&Y had not conducted any valuation

Sushiladevi R. Somani, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 5795/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 55A

more than a decade old. No other issues are raised by the authorities below with respect to the method adopted for the valuation of shares in question. In view of these discussions, and on the peculiar facts of this case, we uphold the plea of the assessee, and direct

Rikosh Fashions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5719/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Rikosh Fashions P. Ltd. Dcit 605, Business Classic, Circle 9(3), Chincholi Bunder Road, Vs. Malad (W) Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai-400 064 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaccr3941G Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Ranjan, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan, CIT DR
Section 14Section 143Section 14ASection 68

gross profit ratio of the assessee is meager and assessee has not provided any basis for figure on the basis of which valuation of shares was arrived at. AO was also concerned that for the year under consideration assessee has made a loss of ₹ 13,016,760. Accordingly the learned

M/S Information Technology Park Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-11(2), Bangalore

ITA 1358/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)

appellant that, based on the facts of the case, Discounted Cash Flow Method is the most appropriate method to be followed for valuation of shares. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the redemption of preference shares by Ascendas Property Fund (India) Pte Limited, a Foreign ... fair market value of a property, other than immovable property, shall be determined in the following manner, namely,— (a) ****** (b) ****** (c) valuation of shares and securities,— (a) the fair market value of quoted shares and securities shall be determined in the following manner, namely,— (i) if the quoted shares

M/S Information Technology Park Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1)(4), Bangalore

ITA 1357/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)

appellant that, based on the facts of the case, Discounted Cash Flow Method is the most appropriate method to be followed for valuation of shares. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the redemption of preference shares by Ascendas Property Fund (India) Pte Limited, a Foreign ... fair market value of a property, other than immovable property, shall be determined in the following manner, namely,— (a) ****** (b) ****** (c) valuation of shares and securities,— (a) the fair market value of quoted shares and securities shall be determined in the following manner, namely,— (i) if the quoted shares

M/S Wavell Investments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1644/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd. Jt. Cit (Osd) 15, Mohindra House, 2(3)(1) Room No. 552, 5 Th Floor, J N Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacw0598C M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd. Jt. Cit (Osd) 15, Mohindra House, 2(3)(1) Room No. 552, 5 Th Floor, J N Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Ms Ritika Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2022

For Appellant: Ms Ritika Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(i)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

facts and in law in upholding that the AO's valuation even though it has adopted an incorrect date of fair market valuation of shares. ITA nos. 1288 & 1644/Mum/2019 M/s Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 5–16 4. BECAUSE, the CIT (A) has erred on facts ... that assessee is not able to rebut the observations of the learned Assessing Officer and before him also assessee failed to substantiate the valuation of shares in objective manner. ii. With respect to disallowance of interest, learned CIT (A) noted that amount of loan and advances given to the related

Jt. CIT(OSD)-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1288/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd. Jt. Cit (Osd) 15, Mohindra House, 2(3)(1) Room No. 552, 5 Th Floor, J N Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacw0598C M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd. Jt. Cit (Osd) 15, Mohindra House, 2(3)(1) Room No. 552, 5 Th Floor, J N Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Ms Ritika Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2022

For Appellant: Ms Ritika Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(i)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

facts and in law in upholding that the AO's valuation even though it has adopted an incorrect date of fair market valuation of shares. ITA nos. 1288 & 1644/Mum/2019 M/s Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 5–16 4. BECAUSE, the CIT (A) has erred on facts ... that assessee is not able to rebut the observations of the learned Assessing Officer and before him also assessee failed to substantiate the valuation of shares in objective manner. ii. With respect to disallowance of interest, learned CIT (A) noted that amount of loan and advances given to the related

Privilege Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 14, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 3317/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax– M/S Privilege Industries Ltd. 14 3Rd Floor, Dheeraj Arma, Anant Room No. 415, Vs. Kanekar Marg, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs6532N

For Appellant: Mr. Nimesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay V. Deshmukh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(viib)

Pr.CIT has erred in law & on ignoring the facts Appellant Company has provided all the documents as required by AO on matter of valuation of share issued. 7. The learned Pr.CIT has erred in not considering the detailed submissions made by the appellant Company during the 263 proceedings and completely ... record, the learned PCIT found that valuation report placed on record by the assessee has not been examined and consequently whether valuation of share is in accordance with provisions of Section 56 (2)(viib) of The Act. After hearing the assessee the learned PCIT noted that the value per share

M/S Majju Image & Brand Consultants Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2015/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Majju Image & Brand Consultants Pvt. Ltd., The Pr. No. G1, Accolade Commissioner Of Apartments, Income Tax, Millers Road, 2Nd Cross, Bangalore – 4, Benson Town, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 046. Pan: Aaicm6586E Appellant Respondent : Shri B.S. Balachandran, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order U/S. 263 Dated 25/01/2018 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit, Bangalore – 4 For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Revisionary Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Pcit) U/S.263 Dated; 25-01-2018 Is Opposed To The Facts Of The Case & The Law & Therefore, It Is Liable To Be Set-Aside.

For Respondent: Shri B.S. Balachandran
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

appreciate that the assessment order u/s.143 (3) dated; 20-06-2016 was passed after conducting inquiry and verification with regard to the valuation of shares and premium charged, and therefore, invoking of revisionary jurisdiction u/s.263 was unsupportable in the fact and circumstances of the case. 2.3. The learned PCIT failed ... recognized DCF method but an arbitrary method to arrive at higher value to issue shares at huge premium. Considering this the valuation of shares done by auditor as per DCF method is not reliable and should have been enquired into by the A.O, which was not done

Dy CIT. Circle-1, Thane vs. M/S Travecom Global P. Ltd., Bhayander

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 59/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Circle 1 V. M/S. Travecom Global Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 22, B-Wing B/607, Krishnakunj 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park Salasar Brij Bhoomi Wagle Industrial Estate Bhayander (W)-401101 Thane (W)-400604 Pan: Aaect8729Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji Department By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

Accordingly, the assessee estimated the valuation of the shares and issued the same on premium, the Assessing Officer in order to verify the valuation of shares assessee was asked to substantiate the valuation of shares. 5. In response assessee filed valuation report in respect of the above said valuation, after ... Company and the nature of business etc. are enclosed herewith which proves that the assessee company is a start up. Basis of Valuation of Shares issued during the year -DCF Method (Copy of valuation report is annexed -page nos. __ to __) • The assessee has valued each share of face value with