“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hitesh Chhatwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC -5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed while for the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6418/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Mani JainFor Respondent: Vinay Sinha

Section 54F

circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and in law by giving inconsistent finding with regard to the valuation of shares and their allocation between non-compete fees and other. On the one hand, the Ld. CIT(A) agreed that “there is a specific clause ... cent of the consideration towards non-compete fees which in any case was not in conformity with the settled principles of valuation of shares. Therefore, it was to be held that the basis adopted for assigning consideration towards non-compete fees was not correct. Now the question would

Drums Food International P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -6, Mumbai

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

ITA 568/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmandrums Food Vs. Pcit – 6 International Pvt Ltd Room No. 501, 5Th Unit No. 912, 9Th Floor Floor, Aayakar Hubtown Solaris, N.S Bhavan, Mk Road, Phadke Marg, Andheri Mumbai – 400020. (E), Mumbai – 400 069. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccd7235M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Adv.Ar Respondent By : Mr.Surendra Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-6, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Adv.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Surendra Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

erred in revising u/s 263 r.w Explanation 2 the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) dt.10.11.2017 with respect to the issue of valuation of shares without appreciating that the said assessment order was Drums Food International P Ltd, Mumbai neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue ... learned Pr. CIT failed to appreciate that assessee had furnished all details pertaining to the issue of valuation of shares during the course of assessment proceedings and the learned Assessing Officer has accepted the valuation after making proper enquiry and due application of mind and thus the assessment order

Radiant Life Care Mumbai P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 896/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 Radiant Life Care Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., Principle Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor Man Excellenza, S.V. Income Tax Mumbai-3, Road, Vile Parle (W), Vs. R. No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400056. Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aagcr 9198 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Gupta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 56(2)

operation and management rights during the course of assessment proceedings and the assessee had furnished all details pertaining to the issue of valuation of shares/ chagrin of premium & depreciation on operation and management rights during the course of assessment proceedings and the learned Assessing Officer has accepted the valuation & allowed ... depreciation after making proper & specific enquiry with reference to Section 56(2) (viib) for valuation of shares and Section 32 for depreciation on intangible asset. The assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer after due application of mind and after making due investigation / enquiries, which fact is clearly borne

Radiant Life Care Mumbai P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 895/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Gupta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 56(2)

Learning Curve Edutech Solutions Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 832/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2015-16

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

method for valuing shares of the assessee company. It is not in dispute that DCF method is one of the approved method of valuation of shares under Rule 11U & 11UA of the I.T. Rules. During the course of assessment proceedings, we find that the Assessing Officer had indeed called ... details of valuation of shares apart from proving the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers together with genuineness of share premium transactions. The assessee had duly furnished all relevant details in this 3 Learning Curve Edutech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. regard before the learned Assessing Officer. In fact we find

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1219/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

been considered as a capital receipt. This amount has been earned by the company, even though there has never been any valuation of shares. It is noted that the share premium may not genuinely fall under the heading of capital receipt. This whole business transaction has not been disclosed ... price which was less than what they paid for acquiring shares in the previous year relevant to AY 2005-06. There was no valuation of shares at the time when these four companies acquired shares of the assessee in the previous year relevant to AY 2005-06. The purchase price

Jupiter Capital P. Ltd., Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1601/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1563/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

M/S. Te Connectivity Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 300/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.300/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Sheshadri & Ms. Amulya K., CAsFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

assumptions and surmises while disregarding the valuation report submitted by the assessee. The assessee has applied the DCF method for the purposes of valuation of shares and has relied on the valuation report of the Chartered Accountant in this regard. There is settled law on the issue that ... viib) of the Act read with Rule-11 UA of the Income tax Rules, 1962, every assessee has an option to do valuation of shares and determine its Fair Market Value either by DCF method or NAV method, and that the Assessing Officer cannot examine or substitute his own value

DCIT Circle-15 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Rankin Infrastructure Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Ground No. 2 and 3 raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7288/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Circle – 15(3)(1) V. M/S. Rankin Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 451, 4Th Floor Next To Classic Marble Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Subash Nagar Road, Bhandup (E) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai -400078 Pan: Aafcs5275B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal Department By : Shri T. Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar

Section 56(2)(viib)

ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. 11. With regard to Ground No. 2 and 3 relating to admissibility of additional evidences and valuation of shares at market value, the relevant facts relating to these grounds are, the assessee filed additional evidences before the Ld.CIT(A) with the application ... will be specifically mentioned complied with in due course of time. that the assessee has to Subsequently, the justification of the large submit valuation report share premium received with valuation for the above report was submitted vide letters dated mentioned transaction 05.10.2017 and 16.10.2017. but assessee chose not to submit

Givaundan(India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Ltu Cr 1, Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 229/BANG/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Mar 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 229/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Givaudan (India) The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of Plot No. 26, 2Nd Cross, Income Tax, Jigani Industrial Area, Ltu, Bangalore – 562 106. Circle – 1, Vs. Pan: Aaacv7454J Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sumeet Khurana, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit- Revenue By I Date Of Hearing : 11-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaiit Is Submitted That The Main Appeal Was Heard By This Tribunal & Order Was Passed On 02/08/2019. However Grounds 6 & 7 Were Not Adjudicated Independently For Assessment Year 2010- 11. The Assessee Preferred Mp No.15/Bang/2020 Requesting For Adjudication Of These Grounds. 2. Accordingly The Present Appeal Is Fixed For Hearing For Adjudication Of Following Grounds: “6. That The Learned Ao & The Learned Panel Erred Both In Facts & Law In Confirming The Action Of The Learned Tpo Of Making An Adjustment To The Transfer Price Of The Appellant In Respect Of The Payment Of Royalty By Rs.27,67,42,242, Holding That The International Transaction

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, CA

resident prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India (`RBI') under circular no. 16 dated October 4, 2004, adopted by the Appellant for the valuation of shares for buyback in the absence of relevant transfer pricing methodology as on the date of the buyback. 7.3. Levying penalty for non-reporting ... Appellant did not report this transaction in Form 3CEB. Further, the Ld.TPO benchmarked the transaction based on “Net Asset Value (“NAV”) method” for valuation of shares [@ INR 372,931,848] and compared it against the share valuation adopted by the assessee using the Earning Per Share (“EPS”) method

DCIT 6 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Kilitch Healthcare India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross objection is held to be infructuous

ITA 7061/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viia)Section 56(2)(viib)

Explanation of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, which the assessee failed to do, therefore, the valuation of shares provided was unreliable and highly suspicious. Therefore, she held that the valuation report was prepared by the valuer viz Mr. Jain to the satisfaction of the management of the assessee ... choosing one among the NAV method or DCF method. Whereas the Rule 11UA(1) lays down the method to be followed for valuation of share for other purposes under section 56. Sub- clause (a) applies for quoted shares and securities. Sub-clause (b) applies for unquoted equity shares

Rockdale Realtors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-2 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the respective assessees are dismissed

ITA 6740/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 6739/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2014-15) Royal Accord Realtors Pvt. Ltd. 26, Onlooker Building, Sir P.M.Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aadcr-1352-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dcit, Circle -2(1)(1) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 6740/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2014-15) Rockdale Realtors Pvt.Ltd. 9, Datrutwa, Mmg Marg, Dadar East, Mumbai 400 014. Pan: Aadcr-1353-H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dcit, Circle -2(1)(1) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri T.Shankar सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 04/03/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri T.Shankar

Section 115VSection 288ASection 56(2)(viib)Section 79

hand, has submitted that there is no such provision either in the Act or even in the relevant Rules to round off the valuation of shares at the next rupee. Even the learned counsel for the assessee has not been able to point out any provision ... unanimous in stating that the facts in the present appeal are similar to the facts in ITA No.6739/Mum/2019, except for the amount of valuation of shares. Therefore, the submissions made in the aforesaid appeal would equally apply to the present appeal. 8 ITA NO.6740/MUM/2019(A.Y 2014-15) 15. A perusal

Royal Accord Realtors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the respective assessees are dismissed

ITA 6739/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri T.Shankar

Section 115VSection 288ASection 56(2)(viib)Section 79

25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Range -6(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 3085/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 56(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM आयकर

ITO 6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. 25 Fps Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2798/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 56(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM आयकर

DCIT, CC- 8(4), Mumbai vs. Ashok R. Ruia (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6309/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Shailja Rai

Section 132

crores was break up of Rs. 364 crores. given by the assessee at the time of search as a rough figure of valuation of shares at the time when seized page no. 2 (page 15 of assessment order) was prepared. This figure was taken as base by wing as well

Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as directed above

ITA 4675/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Asst. Commissioner Income Asian Paints Ltd. Tax, (Large Taxpayer Unit)-2, 6A Shanti Nagar, Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), World Trade Centre, Cuffee Mumbai-400 055 Vs. Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaaca3622K Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of 6A Shanti Nagar, Income Tax-Ltu Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400 055 World Trade Centre, Cuffee Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Sr Dr Respondent By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02 .2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Am: 01. These Are Cross Appeals Filed By Asian Paints Ltd [Appellant/Assessee] & The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax – Large Taxpayers Unit

For Appellant: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr DRFor Respondent: Shri

Section 14ASection 35

calculation furnished by the assessee. Assessee objected before the TPO that Discounted Cash Flow Method alone could not be an appropriate method for valuation of shares. Before the learned transfer, pricing officer assessee justified that the combination of the Net Asset Value Method as well as the Discounted Cash Flow

Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 289/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 289/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.04.2021 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Passed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment Order Bad In Law 1.1. At The Outset, M/S Ibm India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant' Or 'The Company') Prays That The Order Dated April 30. 2021

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Roti, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)

value of Rs. 10 has been valued at Rs. 919 for claiming deduction towards discount at Rs. 909 per share. This aspect of valuation of shares at Rs. 919 per share needs to be examined by the Assessing Officer. Page 19 of 26 IT(TP)A No. 289/Bang/2021

M/S. Fortigo Network Logistics Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2174/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri G.S. Prashanth, A.RFor Respondent: Sri M.K. Biju, D.R

Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

view that these documents should be admitted. Accordingly, we admit both these documents. 7. With regard to the valuation of shares, the Ld A.R placed his reliance on the decision rendered by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Futura Business Solutions (P) Ltd (2020) (117 taxmann.com 567) (Bang ... Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd (supra), the AO is not entitled to change the method of valuation of shares. 9. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by LD CIT(A) and restore all the issues to the file of AO with the directions