“DCF method”

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

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

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:

assessee, the shares have been valued at Rs. 1050.98 appx. In the valuation report, two methods were considered by the valuer. As per DCF method, value per equity share is estimated at Rs.1536.28 and as per PIE method, it was estimated at Rs.565.68, and to arrive at the value ... holders as per the valuation report dated 05.07.2013 obtained from the Govt registered valuer and the method prescribed under Rule 11 UA as per DCF method. The shares were valued as per weighted average method, consequently the assessee has issued the shares of face value of Rs100 at a premium

ACIT Circle-3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Chemicon Engineering Consultant Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7907/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Chemicon Engineering बिधम/ Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Room No.607, Aayakar Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 833/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) बिधम/ Chemicon Engineering Room No.607, Aayakar Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2686H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & Revenue Respectively Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-08, Mumbai Dated 29.11.2019 For The A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Both The Parties Are As Follows: Assessee Grounds: - 1. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 (The “Act”) & A.Ys.2013-14 Chemicon Engineering That By The Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act So Far It Relates To In Confirming Of The Additions To The Extent Of A) Rs. 6,22,05,000/- Received From Certain Companies Out Of Total Rs. 13,13,50,000/- In Respect Of Shares Allotted Against Share Application Money;

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM

Chemicon Engineering Consultant Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 3 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7907/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Chemicon Engineering बिधम/ Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Room No.607, Aayakar Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 833/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) बिधम/ Chemicon Engineering Room No.607, Aayakar Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2686H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & Revenue Respectively Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-08, Mumbai Dated 29.11.2019 For The A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Both The Parties Are As Follows: Assessee Grounds: - 1. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 (The “Act”) & A.Ys.2013-14 Chemicon Engineering That By The Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act So Far It Relates To In Confirming Of The Additions To The Extent Of A) Rs. 6,22,05,000/- Received From Certain Companies Out Of Total Rs. 13,13,50,000/- In Respect Of Shares Allotted Against Share Application Money;

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM

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

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

obtained from independent firm of Chartered Accountants. From the perusal of the valuation report, we find that the valuer adopted Discounted Cash-Flow (DCF) 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 ... Accountants for justification of share premium received by the assessee. In the said reply the assessee had also categorically stated that valuer had adopted DCF method for valuing shares. We find from the perusal of the valuation report issued by the independent valuer dated 30.6.2014, which is enclosed in page

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

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

object the valuation Our submission No. (on without prejudice basis) 1 OBJECTION OF THE 'a) The valuation has been done by applying DCF DCF METHOD: method. By the very nature, DCF valuation is based on estimates. It would be incorrect to judge the "... Assessee has failed correctness of valuation report ... based on expenditure, project reasonable information and evidences. Refer paras to completion, working follow. These estimates may vary due to change in capital by DCF method circumstances, but, that itself may not make valuation is not supported with report incorrect, All these propositions are well settled actual figures

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

uses the same analogy as discounted cash flow method. Assessee further, stated that the Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules prescribes NAV or DCF method specifically for valuation of equity shares and in Rule 11UA(1)(c)(c) which applies to 'preference shares' no specific method is prescribed ... Chartered Accountant who used Dividend discounting model for valuation of 'preference shares' which used the same analogy/logic as used in discounted cash flow (DCF) method. 6. The AO in the assessment order held that valuation made on the basis of unverified dividend and redemption premium, given by management had inflated

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

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

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

valuation derived as per the net asset value method of US$ 0.74 per share and weight age of ¼ rd to the valuation as per DCF method of US$ 1.80 per share and thereafter it was stated that the weighted equity value is fair market value of the shares ... flow method and more weightage to NAV method. There is no justification coming from the assessee for giving ¾ weightage to NAV method and ¼ to DCF method. 073. Therefore, it is apparent that the assessee does not have any benchmarking the buyback of the shares to determine its arm‘s-length

ITO 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Suntech Peripherals P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No. 3502/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito – 1(3)(2) M/S Suntech Peripherals Pvt. Ltd. 5Th Floor, R. No. 541 बिाम 2-B, Prem Kutir, 177 Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road Babubhai Chinoi Road / Vs. Mubmai-400 020 Marine Drive, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcs-6873-P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jotwani – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang Boman Irani – Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 24/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 18/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai [Cit(A)], Dated 28/02/2017 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) On 30/03/2015. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Read As Under: - 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Share Premium Received On The Ground That It Was A Capital Receipt When In Reality There Is Accretion To Assets Without A Corresponding Increase In Claimable Liability (Shares & Premium Reserve) & Therefore Determining The Nature Of Such Receipt Of Share Premium As Income On It Remaining

obtained internal valuation report by an Accountant based on Discounted Free Cash method (DCF) prior to the issuance of equity shares on premium. This DCF method is one of the approve method of valuation to determine fair market value of the unquoted equity shares of a company. The company ... support of premium received by the assessee, the assessee furnished report of an Accountant wherein the valuation was justified on the basis of DCF method which is one of the recognized method of valuation. Be that as the case may be, Ld. AO has not doubted the valuation made

ITO 6 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Confiance Trading Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 Ito 6(2)(1), M/S. Confiance Trading 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Room No.510, 308, Adharu Industrial Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Estate, M.K. Road, Sun Mill Compound, Mumbai – 400 020 Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaccc4316L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Dharmvir, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Gaurav Kabra, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2022 O R D E R

viib) of the Act from A.Y. 2013-14 only. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee has even filed valuation report as per DCF method, however, the AO has not pointed out any defect or deficiency in the said report. The Ld. CIT(A) also noted that the proviso

Dy CIT 6 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Credtalpha Alternative Investment Advisors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishithe Dy. Commissioner Of Credtalpha Alternative Income Tax 6(2) (1) Investment Advisors Pvt Ltd Room No. 504, 8Th Floor, Ashford Centre, Aykar Bhavan Vs. Shankar Rao Narayan Marg Maharishi Karve Road , Lower Parel , Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 Pan No. Aaecc6357K Appellant .. Respondent

learned assessing officer cannot change the basis of the valuation for the purpose of the provisions of Section 56 (2) of the act from DCF method to net asset value method as held in Vodafone M pesa Ltd versus Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 256 taxmann