← All Phrases

“DCF method”

Special Rate ProvisionsRule 11UARule 11UA318 judgments

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

Leading authorities on DCF method

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.

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.

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.

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.

Agro Portfolio (P.) Ltd. v. ITO
94 Taxmann.com 112 · 2018 · High Court
33
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer (AO) has the power to disturb the valuation of shares provided by the assessee's chartered accountant, even if Rule 11UA(2) is followed. If the AO doubts the valuation report, they are not necessarily bound to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer and can adopt a different method to determine the fair market value.

Cinestaan Entertainment (P) Ltd. v. ITO
106 Taxmann.com 300 · 2019 · High Court
28
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer must accept the fair market value of shares determined by the assessee using a prescribed method like DCF or NAV, and cannot substitute their own valuation, as Section 56(2)(viib) is a deeming provision not open to broad interpretation.

Agro Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO
171 ITD 74 · 2018 · ITAT
27
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer can scrutinize the valuation report submitted by an assessee and may, if necessary, determine a fresh valuation using the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method, even if the assessee opted for a different method, provided the assessee fails to substantiate their projections.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2 v. Enrich Agro Food Products Pvt. Ltd.
148 Taxmann.com 26 · 2023 · High Court
20
citing judgments

The Delhi High Court confirms that when shares are issued at a premium to investors, the valuation of such shares must be assessed based on established methods like the NAV or DCF method, and the revenue cannot arbitrarily determine the fair market value.

Judgments citing DCF method

Rivet Health Club Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 2(2), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6182/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

held that the assessing officer cannot examined or substitute its own value in place of the valuation arrived by the assessee either DCF Method or NAV Method, the commercial expediency 15 has to be seen from the point view of businessman. Further held that if law provides the assessee ... Discounted Free Cash Flow method.” 30. Ergo, the assessee has an option to do the valuation and determine the fair market value either on DCF Method or NAV Method. The assessee being a ‘start-up company’ having lot of projects in hand had adopted DCF method to value its shares

Refiral Solutions Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Gurgaon

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 8306/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 8306/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Refiral Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, House No. 1789, Third Floor, Sector- Ward-3(5), 46, Gurgaon-122002 Gurgaon-1220088 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcr0604D Assessee By: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.01.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A), Kolkata’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1081746005(1) Dated 14.10.2025, In Proceedings U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 56(2)(viib)

above as per Rule 11UA(2)(b) of the I.T. Rules i.e. value determined by a chartered accountant as per Discounted Free cash Flow (DCF) method. The same has been done basically on future profitability and future free cash flow estimates. It has been done primarily on the basis ... change in value is positively related to the cash flows and negatively related to the discount rate. The value of operating assets under DCF method is determined as under STEP I Estimating of FCFF (Free Cash Flow to the Firm) STEP II Development of a discount rate or required rate

Hero Fincorp Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 11(1), Delhi, C.R. Building

ITA 2542/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2542/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year:2017-18 Hero Fincop Ltd., 34 Community Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1) C. R. Building, New Delhi-110002 अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Pan:Aaach0157J Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Shri Himanshu Aggarwal Adv. Revenue By Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14.01.2026 उद्घोषणाकीतारीख/Pronouncement On 16.01.2026 आदेश /Order Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am, The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of ‘Hire Purchase Leasing & Finance'. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/(First Appellate Authority Hereinafter Referred As “Faa”), Delhi Dated 27.03.2024 Arising Out Of Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 29.12.2019For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Disallowance Of Provision For Collection Charges -Rs. 9,75,00,000/-

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 251(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

effectively having a difference of more than Rs. 200 crore. In view of these facts, the AO held that in the present case, the DCF method adopted by the assessee to value its shares was not correct. Further, the AO determined the value of the shares under Rule 11UA ... order. 12.12 The Ld. CIT(A) noted on the perusal of the reply of the assessee that favourable projections for valuing the shares under DCF method was made only to justify the excess valuation of the share and to issue such overvalued shares whose addresses are in other countries

Acid, Circle-5(1), Kolkata vs. Emami Realty Limited, Kolkata

ITA 1457/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 2Section 250Section 50CSection 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant

Instakart Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Special Range-3, Bangalore

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 544/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate and Ms. AnkitaFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT

done only because of value being ascribed to brand or goodwill or any intangibles. The valuation of shares as per the AO was on DCF method and there is no mention in the order of assessment regarding values being ascribed to goodwill/brand or intangibles. We therefore hold that there

Instakart Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Special Rang-3, Bangalore

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 543/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Voh

done only because of value being ascribed to brand or goodwill or any intangibles. The valuation of shares as per the AO was on DCF method and there is no mention in the order of assessment regarding values being ascribed to goodwill/brand or intangibles. We therefore hold that there

DCIT CC -1(4), Bengaluru vs. Instakart Services Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 531/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Voh

done only because of value being ascribed to brand or goodwill or any intangibles. The valuation of shares as per the AO was on DCF method and there is no mention in the order of assessment regarding values being ascribed to goodwill/brand or intangibles. We therefore hold that there

DCIT, CC-1(4), Bengaluru vs. Instakart Services Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 530/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Voh

done only because of value being ascribed to brand or goodwill or any intangibles. The valuation of shares as per the AO was on DCF method and there is no mention in the order of assessment regarding values being ascribed to goodwill/brand or intangibles. We therefore hold that there

Instakart Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 496/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Voh

done only because of value being ascribed to brand or goodwill or any intangibles. The valuation of shares as per the AO was on DCF method and there is no mention in the order of assessment regarding values being ascribed to goodwill/brand or intangibles. We therefore hold that there

ITO 16(1)(5), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai vs. Talentube Entertainment Pvt Ltd, Bandra West

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 5066/Mum/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 5279/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Zaman Ali, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

company had received substantial share premium of Rs.8,688.68 per share and that the valuation had been carried out using the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method. The Ld. AO considered the valuation to be on the higher side and, accordingly, sought details of the subscribers. The assessee furnished a list ... ultimately treated the entire share capital and premium as bogus, though no objection whatsoever was raised regarding the valuation of shares under the DCF method. Consequently, the Ld. AO made an addition of Rs.5,00,00,012/- under section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before

Talentube Entertainment Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 16(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 5066/Mum/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 5066/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Zaman Ali, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

company had received substantial share premium of Rs.8,688.68 per share and that the valuation had been carried out using the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method. The Ld. AO considered the valuation to be on the higher side and, accordingly, sought details of the subscribers. The assessee furnished a list ... ultimately treated the entire share capital and premium as bogus, though no objection whatsoever was raised regarding the valuation of shares under the DCF method. Consequently, the Ld. AO made an addition of Rs.5,00,00,012/- under section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before

Mannequin Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 586/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No. 586/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Mannequin Pharmaceuticals Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Bhubaneswar Private Limited B-26 & 26(1), Chandaka Industrial Estate 751024 Pan No. : Aajcm 6157 G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi Dated 28.08.2025 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Only Issue In The Assessee’S Appeal Was In Respect Of The Validation Of The Share Market Value Of Rs.4,900/- Equity Shares. It Was Submission That The Assesse Had Allowed The Discounted Cash Flow Method At Provided In Rule 11 Ua Of The Act Of The Income Tax Rules. 3. It Was Submission That The Ld.Cit(A) Has Held That The Fair Market Value Of The Unquoted Equity Shares Was To Be Determined By Merchant Banker. It Was Submission That Consequently As The Dcf Method Valuation

For Appellant: Shri P.K Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 56Section 56(2)

that the fair market value of the unquoted equity shares was to be determined by merchant banker. It was submission that consequently as the DCF Method valuation 2 had been prepared by Chartered Accountant and not by the Merchant Banker. The Ld.CIT(A) had confirmed the addition of Rs.84 ... 11UA w.e.f 24/05/2018 and the impugned assessment year 2016-17. In this year qualified chartered accountant was authorized to prepare valuation report under in DCF method. It was submission that in page 15 of the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the Ld.CIT(A) has extracted the valuation of the discounted

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru vs. Flipkart India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1395/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37

done only because of value being ascribed to brand or goodwill or any intangibles. The valuation of shares as per the AO was on DCF method and there is no mention in the order of assessment regarding values being ascribed to goodwill/brand or intangibles. We therefore hold that there

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru vs. Flipkart India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1394/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37

done only because of value being ascribed to brand or goodwill or any intangibles. The valuation of shares as per the AO was on DCF method and there is no mention in the order of assessment regarding values being ascribed to goodwill/brand or intangibles. We therefore hold that there

DCIT Central Circle 7 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Soyumm Marketing Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue, being ITA no

ITA 4306/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1) Room No.653, Aaykar Bhawan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020 V/S Spectra Realities Private Limited, 9, Floor-I, Plot – 51, Kapadia Chamber, Devji Ratansi Marg, ……………… Respondent Chinchbunder, Mumbai – 400009 Pan: Aalcs7233B Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1) Room No.653, Aaykar Bhawan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr.AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

Micro Firm Pvt. Ltd. (supra), from the perusal of the said decision, we find that in the facts of the case, the taxpayer adopted DCF method for the valuation of Non-Cumulative Redeemable ITAs No.4304 & 4306/Mum/2024 (A.Ys. 2017-18) 12 Preference Shares issued, which was accepted ... further evident from the said decision that, adopting the DCF method, the valuation report furnished by the taxpayer determined fair market value at Rs. 2000 per share by adopting a 10% discounting factor. However, the AO arrived at a fair market value of Rs. 1285.41 per share after applying

DCIT Central Circle 7 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Spectra Realties Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue, being ITA no

ITA 4304/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1) Room No.653, Aaykar Bhawan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020 V/S Spectra Realities Private Limited, 9, Floor-I, Plot – 51, Kapadia Chamber, Devji Ratansi Marg, ……………… Respondent Chinchbunder, Mumbai – 400009 Pan: Aalcs7233B Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1) Room No.653, Aaykar Bhawan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr.AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

Micro Firm Pvt. Ltd. (supra), from the perusal of the said decision, we find that in the facts of the case, the taxpayer adopted DCF method for the valuation of Non-Cumulative Redeemable ITAs No.4304 & 4306/Mum/2024 (A.Ys. 2017-18) 12 Preference Shares issued, which was accepted ... further evident from the said decision that, adopting the DCF method, the valuation report furnished by the taxpayer determined fair market value at Rs. 2000 per share by adopting a 10% discounting factor. However, the AO arrived at a fair market value of Rs. 1285.41 per share after applying

Intermesh Shopping Network Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 12(3), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1579/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarintermesh Shopping Network Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, Lower Ground Unit No. 1-06, Ward-12(3), Boomerang, Chandivali Farmroad, Delhi Chandivali, Mumbai-400072 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaci7990L

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Dhawan, Adv (VC)For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

valuation report was provided by the management, together with the projected details of sales and profitability thereon. The valuer had adopted Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method for valuing the shares of the Assessee company by using the discounted rate of 18%. The valuer, in response to question number 5, also ... response , vide letter dated 16-11-2018 replied that Himanshu Bansal is a qualified chartered accountant and had conducted the valuation exercise using DCF method. DCF is a globally accepted standard valuation methodology used for companies with high growth rates and used by all Venture Capital and Private Equity Firms

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. M/S. Indic Wisdom Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 5922/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Jigar MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. D/R
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

relevant details were submitted before the AO, including names and PANs of subscribers, bank statements, valuation reports by a registered valuer using the DCF method, Form PAS-3, and ITRs where available. However, due to procedural lapses in the faceless proceedings—including insufficient time to respond to the show cause

Gbt India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, OSD, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed as above

ITA 1764/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

intent to avoid tax. The Ld. CIT-DR drew our attention to the valuation report based on which the consideration was arrived using DCF method solely based on the projections given by the management, an interested party as there was no mention of goodwill in the valuation report. Further ... Case Law Compilation on Legal issues]. 46. The Ld. Counsel contended that the valuation report as per the DCF method was never questioned by the Ld. AO. This was not even the case of the AO. The Ld. CIT-DR could not make a new case/issue. The issue of depreciation

Shot Formats Digital Productions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6879/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Respondent: Mr. Dinesh Kureja a/w
Section 68

basis of arriving at such an extraordin at such an extraordinary valuation under the Discounted Cash ary valuation under the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Method or otherwise. The Assessing Officer, therefore, Flow (DCF) Method or otherwise. The Assessing Officer, therefore, Flow (DCF) Method or otherwise. The Assessing Officer, therefore, held ... appellate proceedings the appellant merely stated that appellant merely stated that- " the appellant had filed valuation lant had filed valuation report based on DCF method and also a valuation statement based report based on DCF method and also a valuation statement based report based on DCF method and also