← 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

The JCIT (OSD), Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Magnet Buildtech P. Ltd, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 489/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.489/Ahd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Jcit (Osd) M/S. Magnet Buildtech Pvt.Ltd. Circle-2(1)(1) बनाम/ 906-907, Indraprasth Corporate Ahmedabad Opp. Venus Atlantis V/S. Anand Nagar Road Ahmedabad – 380 015 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaicm 4158 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi & Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, Ars Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 09/07/2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” In Short] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 11/12/2018 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Jcit (Osd) Vs. M/S.Magnet Buildtech Pvt.Ltd. Asst. Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi &For Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

obtain the fresh valuation report from an independent valuer and confront the same to the assessee. But the basis has to be DCF method, and he cannot change the method of valuation which has been opted by the assessee. (2) For scrutinizing the valuation report, the facts and data available ... value etc. with the help of Empirical data or industry norm if any and/or Scientific Data, Scientific Method, scientific study and applicable Guidelines regarding DCF Method of Valation." 5.4.5. Further, Commenting on the conclusion arrived at by the A.O. in Para 12 & 13 of the Assessment Order

M/S. Pisces Eservices Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 310/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Years : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri KR Pradeep & Ms. Girija G.P, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Vilas Shinde, CIT (DR)
Section 56(2)(viib)

total income. 12. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the ld. CIT(A). The assessee submitted before the ld. CIT(A) that DCF method is one of the method for the valuation of the shares recognized under the provisions of sec. 56(2)(viib) of the Act, complying ... turn into profit with the passage of time, therefore, it is only future prospect and growth based on which the projections are made under DCF method. The valuation report was prepared by the merchant banker after considering the growth of the food industry as projected by google, Swiggy, Zomato

Hero Motocorp Ltd (As Successor of Hero Investment P.Ltd), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 11(1), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1053/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)

price not less than the price arrived in accordance with the valuation rules prescribed by RBI, i.e., as per Discounted Cash Flow Method ("DCF Method"). As 17 per the DCF Method, the value of shares of the appellant / HIPL was arrived at around Rs.40 lakh per share, for the purpose ... fresh allotment of shares to foreign investors. We find no justification in reasoning of AO to draw adverse inference on that basis as the DCF Method was applied being the acceptable method as per RBI/FDI Rules. The valuation subsequent to exit of Honda, has all together, different dynamics in terms

Tripoto Travel Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-25(2), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6250/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Brij Mohan Barwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

money received from M/s Pandra Trust Scheme and M/s Advantage Incubators on the basis of valuation report from the Chartered Accountant who had used DCF Method to determine the fair market value of the shares of the company. As per the valuation report, the fair market value was Rs.29 ... applied. It was also submitted to the CIT(A) that the discretion is with the assessee to choose between the net asset method or DCF Method as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 11 UA of the Act and the AO cannot substitute his choice. It was also submitted that

Publicis Communications Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax - Circle 7(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 2354/MUM/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A/RFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, Sr. D/R
Section 32

assessee is not using the brand name of CAPL. Further the certificate obtained from the Chartered Accountant where the valuation is done using DCF method on the future accepted profitability of CAPL is also much more than the cost of acquisition paid by the assessee to CAPL. Therefore

Adm Agro Industries Kota & Akola Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 51/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roym/S. Adm Agro Industries Kota & Vs. Dcit, Circle 1 (1), Akola Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Third Floor, Vatika Professional Point, Golf Course Extension Road, Sector – 66, Gurgaon – 122 018 (Haryana). (Pan : Aabcs9646L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate Shri Utkarsh Kr. Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Amisha Gupt, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Order : 10.07.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-I, New Delhi Dated 05.11.2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That, In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer ('Ao') Dated 30.12.2017 U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act,1961 ('The Act'), As Upheld By Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ('Cit(A)') Dated 05.11.2019 & Also The Additions

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

Fair Market Value ('FMV') of shares of the Appellant company has been calculated in accordance with provisions of Rule 11 UA(2)(b) (i.e. DCF Method) and as such is in accordance with law. The same could not have been varied or rejected by the Revenue. 5. That, in view

Capitalg International Llc (Formerly Known As Gc Aisa L.L.C.), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1632/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2024AY 2017-2018
Section 143(3)

same day and at the same price, on the ground that the valuation adopted basis the valuation by the assessee report/application of DCF Method was found to be acceptable. 6. In this case earlier, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has quashed and set aside the TPO's order dated ... Rs.66,109.88 and accordingly, he worked out the difference at Rs.97,93,51,762/-. The ld. TPO held that the valuation report by using DCF method is not correct and acceptable even though it was given by the third party independent valuer of Girnar. He has pointed out various shortcomings

Prl Developers Private Limited, Mumbai City vs. Circle 8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground V of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1031/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

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

that the issue price of shares computed exceeds the fair market value of the shares, disregarding the valuation as per Discounted Cash Flows Method ("DCF Method") adopted by the Appellant and instead applying NAV method. 4 PRL Developers Pvt Ltd 2. The Ld. CIT(A) further erred in upholding ... valuation in NAV which was duly calculated by the assessee in NAV and the Ld.AO rejected the method of valuation and calculated in DCF method determining the FMV of equity shares as net asset value method @Rs.4.38 per share and thereby made an addition balance amount of Rs.1

A.H.Multisoft P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 2400/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI G.S PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Sapra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

Valuer (“technical expert”) KV Sriram who vide their valuation report dated 17/08/2015 valued SAFL’s net equity value at Rs.51,905.83 Lacs as per DCF method. The Valuer’s report is placed at pages 107-131 of PB. Appellant claims that on the basis of this valuation, SAFL offered ... method except its investments in shares of SAFL are to be taken separately at FMV determined by SAFL’s Valuer as per DCF method instead of at book value. On this basis, the Valuer has worked out the FMV of Appellant as under: Particulars Amount in INR Valuation of SAFL

Enn Vee Holdings Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle 31, New Delhi

In the result, the addition made u/s 68 and u/s 56(2)(viib) in the case of M/s Realtime Marketing Pvt

ITA 1195/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 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 ... Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 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. Under

DCIT, CC-31, New Delhi vs. Realtime Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the addition made u/s 68 and u/s 56(2)(viib) in the case of M/s Realtime Marketing Pvt

ITA 1839/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 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 ... Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 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. Under

ITO Ward - 24(1), New Delhi vs. Solitaire Btn Solar Pvt Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1416/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

assessee to value its underlying asset, that is, Mail Today shares has been rejected on the ground that DC method applied is not correct. DCF method is a recognized method where future projections of various factors by applying hindsight view and it cannot be matched with actual performance, and what ... Valuer to examine the same." 4.7 As per various tribunal orders, it was held that as per Rule 11UA(2), assessee could opt for DCF method and if assessee had so opted for DCF method, AO could not discard the same and adopt other method i.e. NAV method of valuing

DCIT, CC-20, Delhi vs. Weldon Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1868/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Gs Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. and Shri Utkarsh Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68A

shares and FMV of these shares had to be done by merchant banker or chartered accountant. Further reference is invited to the comments that "DCF method is a recognised method where future projections of various factors by applying hindsight view and it cannot be matched with actual performance, and what ... Here the Tribunal had held that even the actual future performance not comparable with the projections of DCF cannot be reasons for rejecting the DCF method. The AO is trying to match the past performance on account of dividend on equity shares with the future projections of Page

Hatch Tact Innovations Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1261/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Hatch Tact Innovations Private Vs Pr. Cit, Limited, Faridabad. C2/215, Jal Vayu Towers, Sector 56, Gurgaon (Haryana) – 122 002. Pan: Aadch5527R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K. Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr & Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.06.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

company but no Certificate issued from the Inter- Ministerial Board of Certification for tax benefit in this connection was available in the file. The DCF method was based on projected figures and the auditors who prepared the valuation report using DCF method clearly states that this report could ... shares at Rs. 306 u/r.11UA(2)(a) as against Rs.1,070 determined by the Chartered Accountant (CA) as per the Discounted Free Cash Flow (DCF) method u/r. 11UA(2)(b) being the option adopted by the appellant. (b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DCIT, Circle- 3(1), New Delhi vs. Apollo Fiege Integrated Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

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

ITA 7834/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2015-16 Assessment Year 2016-17 Acit, Vs Apollo Fiege Integrated Circle-3(1), Logistics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Plot No.20, Sector-44, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 002. Pan: Aalca0748D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Shri R.K. Kapoor & Shri Harish Dhamija, Ca’S Revenue By : Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 31.07.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, New Delhi, (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.722/16-17 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep DinodiaFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 56(2)(viib)Section 68

case, Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in holding that valuation of shares has been determined at Rs. 50/- per share as per DCF method and so no excess premium has been charged without appreciating the facts brought on record by the AO that the valuation of shares made ... assessee as per DCF method is erroneous as statements for F.Y. 2014-15 & F.Y. 2015-16 in which total revenues are shown at Rs. 204.97 cr. & Rs. 206.95 cr. and profit before tax is at Rs. (-) 14.38 cr. and Rs.(-) 11.25 cr. respectively, whereas for the purpose of valuation

ACIT, Circle- 3(1), New Delhi vs. Apollo Fiege Integrated Logistics (P) Ltd., Gurgaon

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

ITA 6151/DEL/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2015-16 Assessment Year 2016-17 Acit, Vs Apollo Fiege Integrated Circle-3(1), Logistics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Plot No.20, Sector-44, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 002. Pan: Aalca0748D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Shri R.K. Kapoor & Shri Harish Dhamija, Ca’S Revenue By : Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 31.07.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, New Delhi, (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.722/16-17 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep DinodiaFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 56(2)(viib)Section 68

case, Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in holding that valuation of shares has been determined at Rs. 50/- per share as per DCF method and so no excess premium has been charged without appreciating the facts brought on record by the AO that the valuation of shares made ... assessee as per DCF method is erroneous as statements for F.Y. 2014-15 & F.Y. 2015-16 in which total revenues are shown at Rs. 204.97 cr. & Rs. 206.95 cr. and profit before tax is at Rs. (-) 14.38 cr. and Rs.(-) 11.25 cr. respectively, whereas for the purpose of valuation

Arafaath Exports Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Meerut

ITA 4076/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Arafaath Exports Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito, C/O Vinod Kumar Goel, Ward-1(1), 282, Boundry Road, Meerut. Civil Lines, Meerut. Pan: Aaica3838R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinod Kumar Goel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .05.2024

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

Chartered Accountant at Rs.67.39 per share should be accepted. The AO observed that the Chartered Accountant has made valuation on the basis of DCF method. However, the AO was of the view that Rule 11UA(2) which prescribes DCF method of valuation of share is applicable w.e.f. 29.11.2012 and, thus ... would not ordinarily be applicable. This apart, in the instant case, the assessee has also supported the premium determined on issue of shares by DCF Method. Thus, the premium charged is supportable by the valuation report and the premium has been charged to existing shareholder. Thus effectively, the benefit

Accel India Venture Fund II L.P., Cayman Islands vs. ACIT Circle-1(1)(1) Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 2655/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 Accel India Ventures Fund Ii Vs. Acit (International Taxation), L.P. Cayman Islands, Circle-1(1)(1), Walkers, 190 Elgin Avenue, New Delhi George Town, Grand Cayman Ky1 -9001, George Town, Not Listed 999999 Pan :Abpfa4451K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. T. Suryanarayana, Sr. Advocate Department By Sh. Vijay B. Vasanta, Cit(Dr)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

computed in accordance with Rule 11UB. He observed that the draft valuation report furnished by the assessee has applied Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method purely on assumptions. He observed that no final valuation report was furnished. He further observed that financials of WIBMO for calculation of all assets ... course of draft assessment proceeding, the assessee has furnished a preliminary draft valuation report, wherein, the value of assets in India was determined applying DCF method. Apparently, the Assessing Officer has not given credence to such valuation report on the ground that it is not the final valuation report

Assistant Commissioner of Income- 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Keva Fragrances Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2017-

ITA 3482/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh BhatFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 32Section 55

/NFAC is erred in deleting the disallowance of depreciation claimed on 'Goodwill' of Rs. 47,26,00,000/- as per valuation done by DCF method as against NAV method adopted by the AO ignoring the provisions of Section 55(2\(a)ii) which mandates that cost of acquisition of capital ... Keva Fragrances Pvt. Ltd. The value of the amalgamating entity was arrived at Rs.381.72 cr using the Discounted Cash Flow (“DCF”) Method. The assessee issued 6,21,029 fully paid-up equity shares of Rs.100/- each at a premium of Rs.6,046.50/- to M/s. S. H. Kelkar

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Keva Fragrances Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2017-

ITA 3480/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh BhatFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 32Section 55

/NFAC is erred in deleting the disallowance of depreciation claimed on 'Goodwill' of Rs. 47,26,00,000/- as per valuation done by DCF method as against NAV method adopted by the AO ignoring the provisions of Section 55(2\(a)ii) which mandates that cost of acquisition of capital ... Keva Fragrances Pvt. Ltd. The value of the amalgamating entity was arrived at Rs.381.72 cr using the Discounted Cash Flow (“DCF”) Method. The assessee issued 6,21,029 fully paid-up equity shares of Rs.100/- each at a premium of Rs.6,046.50/- to M/s. S. H. Kelkar