“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

People Care Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Faridabad

ITA 6178/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S People Care Hospitals Pvt. Vs Ito, Ltd., Ward-2(1), Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Faridabad. Near Neelam Flyover, Sector-20B, Faridabad. Pan: Aagcp8745G Assessment Year: 2015-16 Potent Foods Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Ward-2(1), Near Neelam Flyover, Faridabad Sector-20B, Faridabad. Pan: Aagcp6222N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Saxena, Advocate; Shri Dishant Sethi, Advocate; & Ms Sumangla Saxena, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.12.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: Heard & Perused The Records. The Two Appeals Have Common Investors Whose Investments Have Been Doubted By The Ld, Tax Authorities Below. The Ld. Representatives Of Both The Sides Have Argued Citing Facts Of Ita

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Saxena, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 250(6)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

case of assessee appellant no. 1, is that the assessee further furnished the valuation report as per Rule 11UA(2)(b) i.e DCF method certified by the Chartered Accountant as also mentioned in reply dated 29.12.2017. Thus, it is submitted that the assessee as well as investor companies has furnished ... valuation of shares since that option is given to the Assessee. Where the Assessee exercises its option to value its shares as per DCF method, the AO cannot completely disregard such method and replace it his method even if specific discrepancies are found by the AO in Appellant's working

Autope Payment Solutions Private Limited, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Delhi

In the result, ground nos

ITA 86/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar Nayyar, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)

booked tickets on ‘Cash on Delivery’ basis. The assessee also submitted agreement entered with IRCTC and valuation report on the basis of DCF method before the Assessing Officer and also submitted the justification for applying the DCF method, also submitted certified Valuation Report by a chartered accountant along with relevant ... applicable. He also observed that the fair market value of unquoted shares may be determined either as per Net Assessed Value (NAV) or DCF method as determined by a merchant banker or an accountant. 4. He observed that the above valuation was certified by a chartered accountant, after perusal

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad vs. Mytrah Vayu (Gujarat) Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal ofthe Revenue is dismissed

ITA 172/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri P S Choudhary, CIT. DRFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

valuation report of the Chartered Accountant in support of fair market value (FMV) of the shares on the basis of discounted cash flow (‘DCF’) method of valuation. However, the AO rejected the valuation report furnished by the assessee for the reason that there wasmis- match between the projected financials ... before 31st December 2019.” 5. Shri P S Choudhary, Ld. CIT.DR appearing for the Revenue submitted that the AO had rightly rejected the DCF method of valuation as submitted by the assessee considering the huge mis-match between the projected figures and the actual figures. He submitted that the basis

Shaha Finlease Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax 13(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4182/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(1)(viib)Section 68

made by ld. AO being addition of securities premium under section 56 (2) (vii)(b) without appreciating that shares were issued at DCF Method. valued and certified by chartered accountant on 24.09.2012, hence, rule 11UA was not applicable, which came into existence w.e.f. 29.11.2012. 3. Ld. CIT(A) erred ... treated as ‘income from other sources.’ 5. Thereafter, he further held that valuation report submitted by the assessee is based on DCF method which although cannot be accepted as it is prior to introduction of Rule 11UA, however, assessee had relied upon various variables like debt equity ratio, cost

Spl Infrastructure Pvt. Lt, Alwarpet, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai

ITA 325/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.325/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Spl Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 15, Kasturi Rangan Road, Corporate Circle – 6(1), Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [Pan: Aaics0881N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.03.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Raised 11 Grounds Of Appeal. The Ld. Ar Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate, Drew Our Attention To Ground No. 11 & Submits That This Matter Requires To Be Remanded To The File Of The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

market value of the land (immovable assets) whereas in the valuation report, this basis has not been considered and adopted discounted cash flow (DCF) method. It is also observed during the appellate proceedings that the so called Merchant Banker was appointed on 16th March, 2021 and it had submitted ... before arriving the FMV of the shares @ Rs. 150/- per share before issuing the equity shares, which is the pre-requisite condition for adopting DCF Method of valuation and the valuation report is an afterthought evidence created on projection, assumptions, etc. to support the fair market value of equity shares

G S Farm Taaza Produce Private Limited., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (OSD), Range-3(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1255/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri BS Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V Parithivel, JCIT (DR)

Section 154Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

premium of INR 90 per share. To substantiate this premium, the appellant submitted a valuation report based on the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method, which is a recognized method under Rule 11UA of Income Tax Rule. The DCF valuation projected future earnings over a five-year horizon, considering growth data ... Delhi High Court (supra), in which the Hon’ble High Court directed the AO to reconsider valuation based on the DCF method. This reversal reaffirms the DCF method as an accepted approach, provided it meets criteria under Rule 11UA of Income Tax Rules. The relevant extracts of the judgment

Parasmani Gems Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Cir-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2263/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2263/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) बनाम/ Parasmani Gems Pvt. Ltd. The D.C.I.T. 2, Supan Complex, Nr. Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. Dharnidhar Derasar, Paldi, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 380006 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcp6337M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul K Patel, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/10/2024 21/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 234ASection 56(2)(viib)

that the shares allotted on 03.11.2012 were on the basis of fair market value (FMV) of the shares as determined under Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method, in support of which a report of the Accountant was filed. However, the AO was not satisfied with the working ... shares. He, therefore, rejected the DCF method of valuation adopted by the assessee and worked out the value of the shares as per Net Asset Value (NAV) method, which worked out to Rs.34.55 share only. Accordingly, the AO held that the premium charged to the extent of Rs.55.45

Max Hospitals and Allied Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai -3, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2907/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2018-19 Max Hospitals & Principal Allied Services Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor, Income Tax Mumbai- 3 Man Excellenza, Room No.612, Vs. S. V. Road, 6Th Floor, Vile Parle (W.), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400056 Maharishi Karve Road, Pan: Aagcr9198D Mumbai- 400020. Appellant : Respondent

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogia Nagpal (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(viib)

shares of the Company as on October 11, 2017 at Rs. 39.58/- per equity share. The Merchant Banker adopted Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method to value the shares of the company. Total Share premium of Rs. 14,94,94,978/- was received during the A.Y.2018-19. 4. Perusal of the assessment ... been met even upto 31.03.2019, which clearly indicated that the inflated profits were adopted for computing the value of the share by mentioned following DCF method. Therefore, the A.Ο. mentioned in the order that the projections on which the premium was based had not only been proved wrong

Sills Karingattil Jose, Nedumkandom vs. ITO Ward 2, Thodupuzha

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 132/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhsils Karingattil Jose Income Tax Officer Np 3/406, Karingattil Ward - 2, House, Munnar Road Thodupuzha Vs. Nedumkandom P.O. [Pan: Afopj8789C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R

Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(V)Section 250Section 50CSection 53ASection 56(2)(vii)

escapement of income. 5.2 During the assessment proceedings, the appellant argued that the valuation of shares has been done through 4 Sils Karingattil Jose DCF method. The appellant also submitted the valuation report. The Assessing Officer found that it is not backed by any documentary evidence. Hence, the Assessing Officer ... Trib.). In all these cases, the contention of the revenue that NAV method should be adopted if the Assessing Officer is not satisfied with DCF method has been upheld by various benches of Hon’ble Tribunal. 5.3 Now the appellant in the appellate proceedings has submitted that the revenue authorities

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Amar Prakash Developers Private Limited, Chrompet, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 577/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.577/Chny/2024 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Amar Prakash Developers Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1), Vs. Pvt. Ltd, Chennai No.314, Pattamal Complex, G.S.T.Road, Chrompet, Tamil Nadu-600 044. [Pan: Aahca6244J]

For Respondent: Shri V.Nandakumar, CIT

Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

assesse vehemently relied upon the decision of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition. The Ld. CIT(A) reportedly held that the DCF method adopted by the assesse is correct as the same entails that financial of the company are projected with various assumptions and beliefs of the management based

People Care Hospitals Private Limited, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 100/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 People Care Hospitals Private Vs Ito Limited, Plot No.1066, Baba Ward- 2 (1) Nagar, Near Janta Barat Ghar, Faridabad Old Faridabad, Haryana 121002 Pan No.Aagcp8745G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Geranium Barkers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito 103/B, Near Shyamji Mandir Ward-1 (3) Malerna Road, Adarsh Nagar, Faridabad Ballabgarh Haryana -122004 Pan No.Aafcg3396P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Riven Health Club Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Ff-9, Vishnu Place Near Ward- 2 (2) Neelam Flyover Sector-20B Faridabad Faridabad Haryana121001 Pan No. Aagcr1343A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Advocate Ms. Sumangla Saxena, Advocate Sh. Dishant Sethi, Advocate

Section 131oSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

wherein it is held that the Assessing Officer cannot examined or substituted its own value in place of valuation arrived by the assessee either DCF Method or NAV Method, the commercial expediency 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

Gujarat Farm Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Anand

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

ITA 431/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 431/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2014-15)

For Appellant: Vora, A.RsFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)Section 56(2)(vilib)

which, the premium was received. The assessee had furnished certificate of the Accountant with the working of FMV as per Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method. On examination of the valuation, the AO held that the valuation as done by the assessee as per DCF was not correct and accordingly ... allowed to produce additional evidence as per Rule-46A. 2.1 The Ld. NFAC has grievously erred in law and on facts in rejecting DCF method adopted by the chartered account and upholding the FMV at Rs. 105/- per share instead of Rs.250/- and thereby partly confirming the addition u/s.56

Clonz Biotech Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 636/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2017-18 Clonz Biotech Private Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcc7742B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Srikanth Reddy, Y. Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.11.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Srikanth Reddy, Y. Sr.AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

Reasons for not considering the Share Valuation Reports: 1. The assessee has not furnished the basis with appropriate documentation for the projections taken in DCF method of valuation of shares. 2. No supporting documents were furnished in respect of estimation of future cash flows such as business contract agreements, work ... assessee has submitted projections, there is no clarity from which year it was projected. For the reasons mentioned above, the valuation report as per DCF method cannot be considered. In view of this, both the Share Valuation Certificates submitted by the assessee are not acceptable and the actual share value

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nungambakkam vs. R K M Powergen Private Limited, T Nagar

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the

ITA 800/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri. A. Sasikumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. V. Ravichandran, CA

Section 56(1)

high premium of Rs.240(Rs.250 including face value of Rs.10) as against the FMV of Rs.99.96 as worked out by the assessee as per DCF method. 8.3.2. TPO findings indicating that inflated purchases were made from M/s MIPP International: 8.3.2.1It is seen that M/s.Enerk International Holdings Limited ... Appellant submitted that the share prices are determined by commercial negotiations with investors. The valuation of shares based on the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method (for AY 2010-11, it is as per CCI guidelines) was done only to comply with the requirements of RBI Guidelines pertaining to allotments made

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. R K M Powergen Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the

ITA 799/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri. A. Sasikumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. V. Ravichandran, CA

Section 56(1)

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

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 103/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Section 131oSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

Geranium Bakers Private Lmited, Ballabhgarh vs. ITO Ward-1(3), Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 102/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Section 131oSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1855/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Ms.Tanmaya, ARFor Respondent: Ms.Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 234CSection 250Section 274

business that is transferred as part of slump sale is carried out by the independent Chartered Account who has done the valuation using DCF method. The ld AR also submitted that Delcam has paid the capital gain arising out the slump sale on the consideration which is paid basis

Fly With Vip Online Private Limited, Sewri Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax - 5(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4656/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Shri. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar (SR.AR.)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vib)Section 56(2)(viib)

valuation report for both the share prices Rs.414/- per share and Rs.715/- per share. Such valuation was arrived at by the discounted cash flow (DCF) method. The assessment was completed and the Ld.AO did not accept the explanation and justification provided by the assessee and made addition of consideration received ... written submission which are kept in record. We found that the shares issued by the assessee is duly valued on the basis of the DCF method which is an accepted method under rule 11UA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The Ld.CIT(A) observed that the assessee had not shown

Indorama Ventures Oxides Ankleshwar Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4023/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Shri. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 56(2)(x)Section 928(2)

pursuing section 56(2)(x) of the Act the difference of purchase value amount to Rs. 174,01,59,374/- and the valuation under DCF method amount to Rs. 190,80,00,000/-which works out to Rs. 16,78,40,626/- was added back with the total income ... adjustment primarily on the ground that the business was purchased amount to Rs.1,74,01,59,374/- whereas its fair value computed under the DCF method (treated as ALP) was amount to Rs.1,90,80,00,000/-and thus difference amount to Rs. 16,78,40,626/- was taxable under