← All Phrases

“NAV method”

Special Rate ProvisionsRule 11UARule 11UA182 judgments

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

Leading authorities on NAV 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 NAV method

M/S. Ambattur Developers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-1(1), Chennai

ITA 2601/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2601/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Ambattur Developers Private Limited, (Amalgamated With Ambattur Hotels Private Limited) No. 86/E2, Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai - 600 058. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaeca-7490-D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Corporate Ward- 1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : Shri. Bipin, C.N., Cit सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025 : 11.11.2025 आदेश /Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Nfac, Delhi, (In Short Ld.Cit(A)) For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Vide Order Dated 12.08.2024. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: :-2-:

For Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

M/S. Thiruvalluvar Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Rasipuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1737/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 11

Apex court in the case of Hero Cycles (P) Ltd Vs.CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347. Further, the assessee also submitted valuation based on NAV method and arrived at a value of Rs.373.48 per share and requested to adopt the same. 34. However, the ld.CIT(A) has rejected the explanation given ... Officer stating that the assessee had not furnished the valuation report certified by the independent CA and also the valuation of shares based on NAV method by considering the market value of land and held as under: “13.2 I have carefully examined the assessment order, the grounds of appeal

M/S. Thiruvalluvar Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Rasipuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1736/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 11

Apex court in the case of Hero Cycles (P) Ltd Vs.CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347. Further, the assessee also submitted valuation based on NAV method and arrived at a value of Rs.373.48 per share and requested to adopt the same. 34. However, the ld.CIT(A) has rejected the explanation given ... Officer stating that the assessee had not furnished the valuation report certified by the independent CA and also the valuation of shares based on NAV method by considering the market value of land and held as under: “13.2 I have carefully examined the assessment order, the grounds of appeal

M/S.Thiruvalluvar Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Rasipuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1735/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 11

Apex court in the case of Hero Cycles (P) Ltd Vs.CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347. Further, the assessee also submitted valuation based on NAV method and arrived at a value of Rs.373.48 per share and requested to adopt the same. 34. However, the ld.CIT(A) has rejected the explanation given ... Officer stating that the assessee had not furnished the valuation report certified by the independent CA and also the valuation of shares based on NAV method by considering the market value of land and held as under: “13.2 I have carefully examined the assessment order, the grounds of appeal

M/S. Thiruvalluvar Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Rasipuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1734/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 11

Apex court in the case of Hero Cycles (P) Ltd Vs.CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347. Further, the assessee also submitted valuation based on NAV method and arrived at a value of Rs.373.48 per share and requested to adopt the same. 34. However, the ld.CIT(A) has rejected the explanation given ... Officer stating that the assessee had not furnished the valuation report certified by the independent CA and also the valuation of shares based on NAV method by considering the market value of land and held as under: “13.2 I have carefully examined the assessment order, the grounds of appeal

Savegenie E-Marketing Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Gurgoan

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

ITA 3847/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

rule (2) of Rule 11UA, the assessee has an option to determine the fair market value of shares to be issued either on NAV method (sub-rule (2)(a)) or the DCF Method (sub-rule (2)(b)), and the Assessing Officer cannot substitute his own value in place of value ... Rules, 1962, every assessee has an option to conduct valuation of shares and determine its Fair Market Value either by DCF method or NAV method, and that the Assessing Officer cannot substitute his own value in place of the value so determined without pointing out any error, Page

A B Propmart Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 108/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] A B Propmart Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, Punjabi Bhawan, 10 Ward-1(1), Rouse Avenue, Delhi-110002. Delhi Pan-Aagca7340G Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Chandan Agarwal, Ca & Shri Ajay Marwah, Ca Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15.10.2025 Order

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

prescribed methodology. The Appellant- Revenue had the option to conduct its own valuation and determine FMV on the basis of either the DCF or NAV Method. The Respondent- Assessee being a start-up company adopted DCF method to value its shares. This was carried out on the basis of information

Kataria Snack Pellets Private Limited, Rajkot vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 468/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.468/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kataria Snack Pellets Pvt. Ltd. The Acit, Circle-1(1) बनाम 510, Gidc, Metoda Kalawad Road Rajkot Rajkot-360021, Gujarat Vs. Pan : Aafck2028L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Nishit B. Jesur, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

result of DCF method cannot be verified. This left no option to the AO but to reject the DCF method and to go by NAV method to determine the FMV of the shares Without such evidence, it serves no purpose even if the matter is referred to the Department ... valuation report did not adhere to these guidelines, particularly in the areas of cash flow projections, discount rate, and terminal value. Therefore, adoption of NAV Method by assessing officer, in these circumstances, is fair. In the absence of a credible DCF valuation, the AO adopted the Net Asset Value (NAV

Ideaforge Technology Ltd, Mahape vs. ACIT, Circle 15(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 867/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 867/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ideaforge Technology V/S. Assistant Commissioner Ltd. बिधम Of Income Tax, Circle El-146, Ttc Industrial 15(2)(1), Mumbai Area, Electronic Zone, Room No. 357, 3Rd Floor, Midc, Mahape, Navi Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Mumbai Karve Road, Mumbai 400020 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabci6495B Appellant/अपीलधथी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्धाररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi Shri. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (Sr Dr) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date Of Hearing 22.08.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 11.12.2024, Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “On The Facts & In Law, 1. The Hon. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Id Ao In Making Addition Of Rs. 6,60,02,100/- By Relying Upon The Provisions Of Section 56(2)(Viib) Of The It Act, 1961 On The Ground That The Consideration Received By The Appellant For Issue Of P A G E | 2

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viIb)Section 56(2)(viib)

Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Method adopted by the appellant by relying upon Rule 11UA(2)(b) but instead applying Net Asset Value (NAV) method, which being not justified, the addition of Rs.6,60,02,100/- may kindly be deleted. 2. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in in upholding the action ... highly technical company. Discounted Free Cash Flow Method (DCF) was considered more suitable. However, Ld. AO rejected the assessee’s computation and applied the NAV method on the ground that basis of valuation adopted by P a g e | 4 ITA No. 867/Mm/2025 Ay 2017-18 Ideaforge Technology

DCIT Circle-13(2), New Delhi vs. Jus Scriptum Magnus Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, we dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue

ITA 8259/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Pramod Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

investors responded to the abovesaid notices. The Assessing Officer rejected the valuation report submitted by the assessee and proceeded to adopt the NAV method and determined the fair market value at Rs.64.3 per share. Accordingly, he proceeded to make the difference between share premium received and value determined under NAV ... tinkered with DCF methodology and rejected by Comparing the projections with actual figures. The Rules provide for two valuation methodologies, ne is assets based NAV method which is based on actual numbers as per latest audited financials of the assessee company. Whereas in a DCF method, the value is based

Pranoo Financial Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 13(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4580/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi & Ms. Sruti KalyanikarFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

tinkered with DCF methodology and rejected by comparing the projections with actual figures. The Rules provide for two valuation methodologies, one is assets based NAV method which is based on actual numbers as per latest audited financials of the assessee company. Whereas in a DCF method, the value is based ... prescribed methodology. The Appellant-Revenue had the option to conduct its own valuation and determine FMV on the basis of either the DCF or NAV Method. The Respondent-Assessee being a start-up company adopted DCF method to value its shares. This was carried out on the basis of information

Income Tax Officer, New Delhi vs. Nine Plus Inftrastructure Private Limited, Gurgaon

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

ITA 4887/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Devatia, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tiwari, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

comparing the Page 4 of 10 ITA No.4887 / Del / 2024 projections with actual figures. The Rulesprovide for two valuation methodologies, one is assets based NAV method which is based onactual numbers as per latest audited financials of the assessee company. Whereas in a DCFmethod, the value is based on estimated ... prescribed methodology. TheAppellant-Revenue had the option to conduct its own valuation and determine FMV onthe basis of either the DCF or NAV Method. The Respondent-Assessee being a start-upcompany adopted DCF method to value its shares. This was carried out on the basis ofinformation and material available

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai vs. Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result all the four appeals of the Assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2959/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2754, 2755, 2756 & 2757/Cnny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & Sa 22/Chny/2025 [In Ita 2757/Chny/2024] धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Schneider Electric Systems Acit India Private Limited, Vs. Corporate Circle 3(1) Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Chennai. Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2958 & 2959/Chny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 Acit Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Corporate Circle 3(1) Vs. Chennai. Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) धनिाजररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate & Ms. Tanya, Advocate (Virtual) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 250

held that the division was sold as a going concern and since the sale value is higher than the value determined under DCF and NAV method, the TPO cannot make any adjustment. 18. The Ld. DR contended that since the division was incurring continuous losses, the valuation

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai vs. Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result all the four appeals of the Assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2958/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2754, 2755, 2756 & 2757/Cnny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & Sa 22/Chny/2025 [In Ita 2757/Chny/2024] धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Schneider Electric Systems Acit India Private Limited, Vs. Corporate Circle 3(1) Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Chennai. Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2958 & 2959/Chny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 Acit Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Corporate Circle 3(1) Vs. Chennai. Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) धनिाजररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate & Ms. Tanya, Advocate (Virtual) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 250

held that the division was sold as a going concern and since the sale value is higher than the value determined under DCF and NAV method, the TPO cannot make any adjustment. 18. The Ld. DR contended that since the division was incurring continuous losses, the valuation

Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Chennai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre - Jao - ACIT, Corporate Circle, 3(1), Chennai

In the result all the four appeals of the Assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2757/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2754, 2755, 2756 & 2757/Cnny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & Sa 22/Chny/2025 [In Ita 2757/Chny/2024] धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Schneider Electric Systems Acit India Private Limited, Vs. Corporate Circle 3(1) Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Chennai. Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2958 & 2959/Chny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 Acit Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Corporate Circle 3(1) Vs. Chennai. Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) धनिाजररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate & Ms. Tanya, Advocate (Virtual) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 250

held that the division was sold as a going concern and since the sale value is higher than the value determined under DCF and NAV method, the TPO cannot make any adjustment. 18. The Ld. DR contended that since the division was incurring continuous losses, the valuation

Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Chennai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre - Jao - ACIT, Corporate Circle, 3(1), Chennai

In the result all the four appeals of the Assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2756/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2754, 2755, 2756 & 2757/Cnny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & Sa 22/Chny/2025 [In Ita 2757/Chny/2024] धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Schneider Electric Systems Acit India Private Limited, Vs. Corporate Circle 3(1) Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Chennai. Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2958 & 2959/Chny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 Acit Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Corporate Circle 3(1) Vs. Chennai. Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) धनिाजररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate & Ms. Tanya, Advocate (Virtual) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 250

held that the division was sold as a going concern and since the sale value is higher than the value determined under DCF and NAV method, the TPO cannot make any adjustment. 18. The Ld. DR contended that since the division was incurring continuous losses, the valuation

Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Chennai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Corporate Circle, 3(1), Chennai

In the result all the four appeals of the Assessee and both the appeals

ITA 2755/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2754, 2755, 2756 & 2757/Cnny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & Sa 22/Chny/2025 [In Ita 2757/Chny/2024] निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Acit Corporate Circle 3(1) Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2958 & 2959/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 Acit Corporate Circle 3(1) Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate & Ms. Tanya, Advocate (Virtual) : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit. :-2-:

For Respondent: Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate &
Section 143(1)Section 250

held that the division was sold as a going concern and since the sale value is higher than the value determined under DCF and NAV method, the TPO cannot make any adjustment. 18. The Ld. DR contended that since the division was incurring continuous losses, the valuation

Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Chennai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Corporate Circle, 3(1), Chennai

In the result all the four appeals of the Assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2754/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2754, 2755, 2756 & 2757/Cnny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & Sa 22/Chny/2025 [In Ita 2757/Chny/2024] धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Schneider Electric Systems Acit India Private Limited, Vs. Corporate Circle 3(1) Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Chennai. Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2958 & 2959/Chny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 Acit Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Corporate Circle 3(1) Vs. Chennai. Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) धनिाजररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate & Ms. Tanya, Advocate (Virtual) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 250

held that the division was sold as a going concern and since the sale value is higher than the value determined under DCF and NAV method, the TPO cannot make any adjustment. 18. The Ld. DR contended that since the division was incurring continuous losses, the valuation

DCIT, CC-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Goldmine Commodities Private Limited, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1260/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1260/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Goldmine Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, बनाम/ Goldmine House, V/S. Central Circle-1(4), 4, Niranjan-Nirakar Society, Ahmedabad. Near Shreyas Railway Crossing, Ambawadi Ahmedabad-380007. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaccg1295L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Kishor Goyal, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.04.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] For Assessment Year 2016-17. The Acit, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”], Dcit Vs. Goldmine Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Goyal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 56(2)(viib)

viib) of the Act on the reasoning that the fair market value as per Rule 11UA was only Rs. 90.23 per share (NAV method), whereas the assessee had adopted the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method showing a much higher value of Rs. 214.47 per share. The AO observed that ... divergence between the projected PAT and the actual audited PAT for the same years. On this premise, the AO substituted the DCF method with NAV method and made the impugned addition of Rs. 6,58,62,000 under section 56(2)(viib). DCIT Vs. Goldmine Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year

Ajooba Water World Private Limited vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Fbd

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1293/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

additional evidences before the NFAC under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules by a detailed paper book together with the valuation report using NAV method in terms of Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules enclosed in Pages 377 to 379 of the Paper Book. We find on perusal