← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Aathmika Holdings Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stand dismissed and the

ITA 836/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(x)Section 92C

deal with the primary grievance of the petitioner. This, even after he concedes with the method of valuation namely, NAV Method or the DCF Method to determine the fair market value of shares has to be done/adopted at the Assessee's option. Nevertheless, he does not deal with the change ... himself or by calling for a final determination from an independent valuer to confront the petitioner. However, the basis has to be the DCF Method and it is not open to him to change the method of valuation which has been opted for by the Assessee. If Mr. Mohanty

Mahadhan Agritech Limited (Formerly Known As Smartchem Technologies Ltd), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 5423/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2020-21
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

purposes of slump exchange was done at NAV method and valuation for the purposes of demerger was done as per market as well as DCF Method. 57. In determining the equity value of SCM, the valuer has adopted DCF and Market Multiple Method. Thus, the apprehension raised by the ld.CIT ... that only DCF method is followed is patently incorrect. 58. The ld. AR further submitted the below points with respect to the valuation report: i) Projections cannot be compared with actual figures. The name itself suggests that it is a „projected‟ figure. ii) A valuation report cannot be dismissed only

Mahadhan Agritech Limited (Formerly Known As Smartchem Technologies Limited ), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3937/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

purposes of slump exchange was done at NAV method and valuation for the purposes of demerger was done as per market as well as DCF Method. 57. In determining the equity value of SCM, the valuer has adopted DCF and Market Multiple Method. Thus, the apprehension raised by the ld.CIT ... that only DCF method is followed is patently incorrect. 58. The ld. AR further submitted the below points with respect to the valuation report: i) Projections cannot be compared with actual figures. The name itself suggests that it is a „projected‟ figure. ii) A valuation report cannot be dismissed only

DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai vs. Mahadhan Agritech Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3569/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

purposes of slump exchange was done at NAV method and valuation for the purposes of demerger was done as per market as well as DCF Method. 57. In determining the equity value of SCM, the valuer has adopted DCF and Market Multiple Method. Thus, the apprehension raised by the ld.CIT ... that only DCF method is followed is patently incorrect. 58. The ld. AR further submitted the below points with respect to the valuation report: i) Projections cannot be compared with actual figures. The name itself suggests that it is a „projected‟ figure. ii) A valuation report cannot be dismissed only

Mahadhan Agritech Limited (Formerly Known As Smartchem Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)--50, Mumai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2229/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

purposes of slump exchange was done at NAV method and valuation for the purposes of demerger was done as per market as well as DCF Method. 57. In determining the equity value of SCM, the valuer has adopted DCF and Market Multiple Method. Thus, the apprehension raised by the ld.CIT ... that only DCF method is followed is patently incorrect. 58. The ld. AR further submitted the below points with respect to the valuation report: i) Projections cannot be compared with actual figures. The name itself suggests that it is a „projected‟ figure. ii) A valuation report cannot be dismissed only

Mahadhan Agritech Limited (Formerly Knwon As Smartech Technologies Ltd ), Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Mumbai-50, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2228/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

purposes of slump exchange was done at NAV method and valuation for the purposes of demerger was done as per market as well as DCF Method. 57. In determining the equity value of SCM, the valuer has adopted DCF and Market Multiple Method. Thus, the apprehension raised by the ld.CIT ... that only DCF method is followed is patently incorrect. 58. The ld. AR further submitted the below points with respect to the valuation report: i) Projections cannot be compared with actual figures. The name itself suggests that it is a „projected‟ figure. ii) A valuation report cannot be dismissed only

Mahadhan Agritech Limited (Formerly Known As Smartech Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Mumbai.50, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2227/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

purposes of slump exchange was done at NAV method and valuation for the purposes of demerger was done as per market as well as DCF Method. 57. In determining the equity value of SCM, the valuer has adopted DCF and Market Multiple Method. Thus, the apprehension raised by the ld.CIT ... that only DCF method is followed is patently incorrect. 58. The ld. AR further submitted the below points with respect to the valuation report: i) Projections cannot be compared with actual figures. The name itself suggests that it is a „projected‟ figure. ii) A valuation report cannot be dismissed only

Ipsaa Holdings Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle 4(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 2720/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 56

correct to conclude that the valuation report filed by us in support of the valuation of the shares of the assessee company based on DCF method, as prescribed under rules 11 UA is incorrect or grossly wrong and therefore this valuation report should not be rejected without anything contrary ... company to its shareholders are excess and observed that the value of the share was not correctly determined with the help of DCF method, therefore, he proceeded to determine the same by applying the other method proposed in Rule 11UA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 i.e. Net Asset Value

Aavishkar Oral Strips Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 369/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Bhupal Goud, C.A
Section 115JSection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

which is not a valid act and order. That the learned AO, has failed to appreciate the valuation method adopted by the appellant under DCF method and recalculated using NAV method as per rule 11UA(1)(b), where appellant is free to adopt its own method and any acceptable method ... DCF method. And it cannot be denied. . That the learned AO, failed to consider the valuation report given by the professional under DCF method and even appellant company has submitted data of actual figures and projections given to the CA for valuation report, there will be a difference between actuals

Invesco(India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle -2 (1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 111/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, Sriram SeshadriFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

when it comes to acquiring shares, it is always the valuation, on 28 ITA.No.111/Hyd./2022 the basis of Discounted Cash Flow [in short “DCF”] method. However, when it comes to accounting treatment for amalgamation of two companies, it is Net Asset Value [in short “NAV”] method. Therefore, the observation ... fair market value of the share was at Rs.81,635/- as on the date of acquisition. Although, the assessee claims that it has followed DCF method for purchase of shares and NAV method for recording asset and liabilities for the purpose of amalgamation, but, there cannot be two enterprise value

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad vs. Ashish Jugalkishor Bhala, Jalna

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

ITA 1238/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Dcit, Aurangabad Ashish Jugalkishor Bhala Mamta Hospital, Shivaji Putla Road, Vs. Bharat Nagar, Jalna – 431203 Maharashtra Pan: Ahmpb3683K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anand Partani Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 01-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-06-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Anand PartaniFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 56(2)(x)

wherein the fair market value as per Market Value Method was determined at Rs.752.50. It was seen that the valuation report had considered the DCF Method, Book Value Method and Market Value Method and after considering the weighted values as per the above-mentioned methods, the valuation of shares

Triveni Knits Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. ITO Ward 1 (3), Ludhiana

ITA 246/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Mehru, CA and Shri Dev Mehru, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 56(2)(vib)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 69

assessee filed additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, including a valuation report prepared under the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method by 3 a Chartered Accountant. It was contended that the valuation using the DCF method is permitted under Rule 11UA and is more appropriate in case ... month of the initial allotment of shares at par. To justify this premium, reliance was placed by the assessee on the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method of valuation. However, the valuation was rejected by the AO, and the Net Asset Value (NAV) method under Rule 11UA(2)(a) was applied

Knowlarity Communications India Private Limited, Gurgaon, Haryana vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(2), Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

ITA 1420/DEL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Knowlarity Communications India Vs Acit, Private Ltd., Circle 14(2), Awfis, 7Th Floor, Delhi. Ambience Mall, Nh-8, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 002. Pan : Aafck1875R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Shri Shivam Yadav, Shri Sumit Lalchandani & Ms Ananya Kapoor, Advocates Revenue By : Ms Rajinder Kaur, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Salil KapoorFor Respondent: Ms Rajinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 250Section 37Section 68

copy of assessee’s reply is provided wherein all the relevant details were provided including mentioning that the fair value have been derived on DCF method. 9. As regards the source of the source of such funds, it was submitted that the holding company has received money from approved venture

Adp India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Chennai

ITA 2698/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.: 2670, 2671, 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Adp India Private Limited, Thamarai Tech Park, 6Th Floor, Sp Plot No. 16 To 20 & 20A, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Inner Ring Road, Guindy Industrial Estate So, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aadcm-5547-J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate Shri V. Justin, Cit & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit 08.05.2025 21.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per George George K: These Four Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Four Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (All Dated 21.08.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. -2-

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्न IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री जॉर्ज जॉर्ज के, उपाध्यक्ष

Adp India Private Limited, Chennai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 2672/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.: 2670, 2671, 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Adp India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Thamarai Tech Park, 6Th Floor, Vs. Income Tax, Sp Plot No. 16 To 20 & 20A, Thiru Vi Ka Corporate Circle 1(1), Industrial Estate, Inner Ring Road, Chennai. Guindy Industrial Estate So, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aadcm-5547-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin, Cit & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: These Four Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Four Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (All Dated 21.08.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. Ita Nos.2670 To 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, CIT &
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)

assessee has submitted that the value of the shares has been determined by a Chartered Accountant as per discounted cash flow method [DCF method] which is one of the methods prescribed under Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules. By relying upon various case law, the ld. Counsel

Adp India Private Limited, Chennai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre

ITA 2671/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/Ita Nos.: 2670, 2671, 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Adp India Private Limited, Thamarai Tech Park, 6Th Floor, Sp Plot No. 16 To 20 & 20A, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Inner Ring Road, Guindy Industrial Estate So, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aadcm-5547-J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate Shri V. Justin, Cit & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit 08.05.2025 21.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per George George K: These Four Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Four Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (All Dated 21.08.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. -2-

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्न IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री जॉर्ज जॉर्ज के, उपाध्यक्ष

Adp India Private Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 2670/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.: 2670, 2671, 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Adp India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Thamarai Tech Park, 6Th Floor, Vs. Income Tax, Sp Plot No. 16 To 20 & 20A, Thiru Vi Ka Corporate Circle 1(1), Industrial Estate, Inner Ring Road, Chennai. Guindy Industrial Estate So, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aadcm-5547-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin, Cit & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: These Four Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Four Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (All Dated 21.08.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. Ita Nos.2670 To 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, CIT &
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)

assessee has submitted that the value of the shares has been determined by a Chartered Accountant as per discounted cash flow method [DCF method] which is one of the methods prescribed under Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules. By relying upon various case law, the ld. Counsel

Nina Kshetry, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle Int.Tax. 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

ITA 1878/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 148

pointed out by Ld. AO how the valuation of shares valued by Chartered Accountant qualified as an accountant u/r 11UA as per the DCF method is incorrect. No reason has been pointed out why the valuation as in FY 2015-16 cannot be adopted and thus

Hersh Vardhan Kshetry, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Tax. 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

ITA 1877/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 148

pointed out by Ld. AO how the valuation of shares valued by Chartered Accountant qualified as an accountant u/r 11UA as per the DCF method is incorrect. No reason has been pointed out why the valuation as in FY 2015-16 cannot be adopted and thus

Sangita Kshetry, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle Int.Tax. 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

ITA 1876/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 148

pointed out by Ld. AO how the valuation of shares valued by Chartered Accountant qualified as an accountant u/r 11UA as per the DCF method is incorrect. No reason has been pointed out why the valuation as in FY 2015-16 cannot be adopted and thus