“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

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 NAV method

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

11UA. Accordingly, the valuation done by the assessee as per prescribed Rule 11UA is irrelevant. The ld. AO then suomoto applied Net Asset Value (NAV) method invoking Explanation (a)(2) below Section 56(1)(viib) and determined the fair market value and the share @Rs.3.07. Thus, he applied ... 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

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)

even if matter was referred to Department's Valuation Officer and hence Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting DCF method and to go by NAV method to determine FMV of shares. In view of the above facts, legal provisions and judicial decision, I don't find any infirmity

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)

WACC) in the projected cost calculation. 5.3 Based on these concerns, the AO rejected the DCF valuation in favor of the Net Asset Value (NAV) method, as prescribed under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act read with Rule 11UA of Income Tax Rules, ultimately assigning a nil fair market ... having the same independently determined by a Valuer appointed for the aforesaid Purpose.” 9.1 Considering these developments, the AO’s adoption of the NAV method over DCF lacks substantiation in the given facts and circumstances. Furthermore, we also note that this Tribunal in the case of M/s Pisces Services

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)

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 (90-34.55) per share ... which certificate of the Accountant was filed by the assessee and the AO was not correct in rejecting the DCF method and adopting NAV method for determining the FMV. He submitted that under Rules, an option was given to the assessee to adopt either NAV or DCF method for determining

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)

Anson Fincorp Pvt. Ltd. at Rs. 10 per share. The Assessing Officer took the fair market value of Rs. 12.29 per share as per NAV method and initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act for the difference of Rs. 11,67,900/- as escapement of income. 5.2 During ... backed by any documentary evidence. Hence, the Assessing Officer rejected the valuation report of the appellant and made the valuation as per NAV method in accordance with Rule 11U r.w. Rule 11UA (1)(c)(b) of the Income Tax Rule and made the addition of Rs.11

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

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 ... 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. Under

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)

Rule 11UA of the IT Rules, the assessee had an option to adopt the FMV of shares either as per Net Asset Value (‘NAV’) method or as per DCF method and that the Revenue cannot force the assessee to adopt anyone particular method of valuation of shares. Therefore, the rejection ... method as adopted by the assessee was not correct. The Ld. AR further submitted that assessee had given a revised working of NAV method of valuation before the Ld. CIT(A) but the additional evidences furnished in this respect was not admitted and considered. The Ld. AR emphasized that

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

Dhola Infra Projects Limited (Formerly Known As Navayuga Dhola Infra Projects Limited), Mumbai vs. ACIT., Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 800/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2016-17 Dhola Infra Projects Limited Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Tax (Formerly Known As Navayuga Circle-16(1) Dhola Infra Projects Limited Hyderabad Mumbai Pan : Aadcn3696B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Paras S.Savla, Ld.Ar (Through Virtual Hearing) Revenue By: Shri U Mini Chandran, Ld.Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri Paras S.Savla, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri U Mini Chandran, Ld.DR

Section 234DSection 244ASection 56(2)(viib)

viib) of the Act read with Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (“the rules”) and instead applying Net Asset Value (“NAV”) method. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in levying interest under section 234D ... while making valuation of the shares issued by the assessee to its shareholders in the same pattern, the assessee instead of issuing shares on NAV method, issued shares on the basis of DCF method. The Ld.AR had drawn our attention to valuation report at Page No.52 of the paper book

M/S. Atria Wind (Kadambur) Private Limited, Bengaluau vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 692/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Vilas V. Shinde, D.R

Section 132Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 47

facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 7. Without further prejudice, the learned CIT [A] ought to have appreciated that the NAV method for computation of capital gains was unwarranted under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 8. Without prejudice

Ace Cabs Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Delhi, C R Building

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanace Cabs Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1 (2), 562, Silver Oak Lane, Delhi. M.G. Road, Ghitorni, Delhi – 110 030. (Pan : Aaica4494R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate Ms. Bharti Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 12.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Submitted An Application Under Rule 29 Of The Itat Rules For Admitting The Additional Evidences & The Contents Thereof Are Reproduced Below:-

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

irregularities allegedly identified by the AO in the valuation report, the valuation of shares using the DCF method should not be rejected, and the NAV method should be utilized instead. (vii) The assessee filed its reply to the show cause notice on 22.11.2019, which was accepted

Apple Infra Build Pvt Ltd, Noida vs. ITO Ward - 3(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 9880/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roym/S Apple Infra Build Pvt. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Plot No. 24/32, Ward-3(1) Block-D, Sector- 63, New Delhi - 110075 Noida- 201301

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

theresult of DCF method cannot be verified This left no option to the AO but to reject theDCF method and to go by NAV method to determine the FMV of the shares. Withoutsuch evidence, it serves no purpose even if the matter is referred to the Department'sValuation Officer ... able to be verified by the Ld.AO and therefore, having no other option the AO rejected the DCF method and stressed on NAV method to determine the fair market value of the shares. Moreso, the valuation report submitted by the appellant is admittedly found to be antedated. In addition

Leela Tourism and Heritage Private Limited, New Delhi vs. A0-ACIT, Circle 15(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3685/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year 2016-17

For Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(C)Section 56(2)(viib)

wholly owned subsidiary. The CIT(A) observed that such methodology adopted by the assessee is not supported by prescribed method of valuation. Once the NAV method has been adopted, the assessee is not allowed to replace the book value of investment in wholly owned subsidiary from Rs. 21.41 crore stated ... Section 56(2)(viib), once it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the AO that the FMV stands at a higher figure, the NAV method can be suitably modified. It is an option given to the assessee company to demonstrate higher fair market value. If the option is exercised

Sparsh Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. ITO Ward-2(4), Haryana

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 86/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Punyah Building Vs Ito Materials Pvt. Ltd. Ward-2 (1) House No.1002, Near Talab Faridabad Shiv Colony, Old Faridabad Haryana Ballahgarh Haryana 122002 Pan No.Aagcp8742B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sparsh Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Plot No.1066, Near Janta Barat Ward-2 (4) Ghar Baba Nagar, Faridabad Faridabad Haryana 121002 Haryana Pan No.Aascs2575D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Speedy Courier Services Pvt. Vs Ito Ltd. Ward- 2 (4) Plot No.1022, Near Talab Shiv Faridabad Colony, Faridabad Haryana Pan No.Aascs2579R (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

other sources by applying section 56(2)(viib) of the Act on protective basis and rejecting the valuation of shares as determined as per NAV method provided under Rule 11UA(2)(a) of Income Tax Rules, 1962. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well ... 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

Punyah Building Materials Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 2(1), Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 81/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 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

Speedy Courier Services Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 2(4), Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 80/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 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

S10 Healthcare Solutions Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-6(3), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 649/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.649/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. M/S.S10 Healthcare Solutions- The Ito, Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Ward-6(3), 102, Mahalingapuram Main Road, Chennai. Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagcp 7986 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vijaya Sriram, CA &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

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

accept the Discounted Cash Flow method (hereinafter in short "DCF") adopted by the valuer (CA); and instead, he adopted Net Asset Value method [NAV method] and worked out the Fair market value (hereinafter in short "FMV") of the shares of the assessee at Rs.40.13 per share. The reasons given ... against 18% adopted by the C.A. And as noted, the AO worked out the FMV of the shares at Rs.40.13/- per share by using NAV method as against the issue of shares by the assessee @ Rs.2552.13/- per share. Thus, the AO computed the difference in value of shares as income

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), New Delhi, C.R. Building vs. Addverb Technologies Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the order of CIT(A) is upheld, and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3095/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Chaudhary, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate, and Ms. Supriya Mehta, CA

Section 56(2)(viib)

were valued following Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method. The AO determined the value of share at Rs. 7426/- per share adopting Net Asset Value (NAV) method. He submitted that in the first instance the shares issued by the assessee were at lower value than the market value determined ... Income Tax Rules, 1962. The AO held that there is flaw in the method of valuation adopted by the assessee and applied NAV method for valuation of shares and computed the valuation of shares at Rs. 7426/- per share. Thus, he made addition

Smart Information Worldwide Inc, Chennai vs. ACIT International Taxation 2(2), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 330/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Smart Information Worldwide Inc. Dcit बनाम/ 49 Sixth Main Road, International Taxation -2(2) Vs. Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-600 028. Chennai-6. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-8497-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri V. Ravichandran (Ca)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V.Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-08-2024

For Appellant: Shri V. Ravichandran (CA)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 48Section 50CSection 50D

methods namely Net Asst Method (NAV) and DCF Method. The values arrived by DCF method was Rs.2135 per shares whereas value as per NAV method was Rs.31.41 per share. The option would be of Ld. AO. Finally, Ld. AO adopted rate of Rs.2274 per share (rate at which shares were