“DCF method”

TECHPARK HOTELS PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ADDI. CIT SPECIAL RANGE-9, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumartechpark Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Addl. Cit, Ground Floor, Central Wing, Special Range-9, Thapar House 124, Janpath, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aabce5833H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Shri Tavish Verma, Adv. Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra Sr. Dr Department By Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against Order Dated 11.09.2019 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2017 Of The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Declaring Loss Of Rs.23,06,28,106/- On 30.11.2015. Notice U/S 143(2) Dated 22.09.2016 Was Issued. Notices U/S 142(1) Were Issued. Sh. Nikhil Agarwal & Shri Nirmal Malpani, Ca Appeared & Filed Details. On Completion Of Proceedings, Ld. Ao Vide Order Dated Techpark Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit

detailed justification provided by the appellant. 4. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in rejecting the Discounted Cash Flow ['DCF'] method for valuation of shares and in considering the Net Asset Value ['NAV'] method without appreciating that the FMV of the shares was computed keeping ... Infirmities in the Appellant's Valuation Reports:  Lack of Evidence: The appellant relied on two valuation reports based on the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method, dated 31.03.2014 and 09.09.2014. Both reports lacked critical documentation and evidentiary support, such as: o Assumptions for projected cash flows. o Basis for the high

K. G. FINVEST PRIVATE LIMITED,EAST DELHI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 29, DELHI, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2015-16] K.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd. Vs Central Circle-29, F-24 F/Floor, I.Sc Pankaj Delhi Central Market, Mandawali Fazalpur, Nr Natraj Vihar Society, I.P. Extn., New Delhi- 110092. Pan-Aaack4032H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sudesh Garg, Adv. & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Respondent By Shri Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29 .01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.06.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-30, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-5/10256/2017-18 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Company Has Filed Its Return Of Income On 28.09.2015, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 5,09,130/-. The Case Was Selected Under Limited Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Followed By Statutory Notices Issued U/S 142(1) Were Issued From Time To Time. In Response, Assessee Filed Submissions & Relevant Details Alongwith Evidences. The Ao Observed That The Assessee Issued 8,40,000 Equity Shares Of Inr 10/- Each At A Premium Of Inr 490/- Each & The Valuation Of Shares Was Done By Following Dcf Method. However, The Ao Rejected The Method Of Valuation Of Share Adopted By The Assessee & Re-Computed The Value Per Share At Inr 50.35 Per Share As Per Nav Method & Made Addition Of Differential Amount Of Inr 37,77,06,000/- U/S 56(2)(Viib) Of The Act.

equity shares of INR 10/- each at a premium of INR 490/- each and the valuation of shares was done by following DCF method. However, the AO rejected the method of valuation of share adopted by the assessee and re-computed the value per share at INR 50.35 per share ... before Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 17.06.2025, dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing that the assessee has made projections under DCF method which are not in accordance with the actuals therefore, the DCF analysis could not be accepted and confirmed the additions made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. GAURAV DALMIA, DELHI

In the result, additional ground 1 under Rule 27 of the assessee is

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Whether the Ld. CIT (A) is correct in law in relying on the valuation report submitted by the assessee, valuation of the shares on DCF method, ignoring the fact that:  there were flaws in the valuation report as pointed out in the assessment order, and  the valuation report does ... share cannot increase from Rs 500 per share to Rs 651.22 per share within few days. vi) The Id AO wrongly relied upon the DCF method of valuation in respect of transfer of shares. However DCF method of valuation cannot be applied in respect of transfer of shares

ITO WARD - 20(3), NEW DELHI vs. QUETZAL EXIM PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department of Revenue is allowed

Copies of agreement were\nfiled by the assessee. Ld. AO summoned the parties but they failed to appear.\nOn basis of irregularities found, DCF method submitted by the Department,\nassessee remained unsubstantiated and was rejected. Fair market value of the\nshares was assessed and addition of Rs.14