← 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

DCIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi vs. Caddie Hotels P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1722/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

cannot expand the meaning of scope of any word while interpreting such deeming provision. ii. Option is with the assessee to choose either NAV method or DCF method. iii. Revenue cannot decide which method should be chosen by the assessee. iv. Once one of the prescribed method has been adopted ... rules. where Assessing Officer can adopt his own valuation method or get it valued by some different Valuer or replace the DCF method by NAV method. vi. DCF method is based on projections which are based on various factors like growth of the company, economic/market conditions, business conditions, expected demand

DCIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi vs. Caddie Hotels P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1721/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

cannot expand the meaning of scope of any word while interpreting such deeming provision. ii. Option is with the assessee to choose either NAV method or DCF method. iii. Revenue cannot decide which method should be chosen by the assessee. iv. Once one of the prescribed method has been adopted ... rules. where Assessing Officer can adopt his own valuation method or get it valued by some different Valuer or replace the DCF method by NAV method. vi. DCF method is based on projections which are based on various factors like growth of the company, economic/market conditions, business conditions, expected demand

Caddie Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT Central Circle 17, Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2014/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

cannot expand the meaning of scope of any word while interpreting such deeming provision. ii. Option is with the assessee to choose either NAV method or DCF method. iii. Revenue cannot decide which method should be chosen by the assessee. iv. Once one of the prescribed method has been adopted ... rules. where Assessing Officer can adopt his own valuation method or get it valued by some different Valuer or replace the DCF method by NAV method. vi. DCF method is based on projections which are based on various factors like growth of the company, economic/market conditions, business conditions, expected demand

Hri Healthcare Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT Circle-10(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2437/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhhri Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of 602, 6Th Floor, Supreme Income Tax, Circle Chambers, Off Veera 10(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Desai Road, Andheri (W) 2Nd Floor, Mumbai – 400053 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacch7613M Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : K. Gopal Respondent By : Soumendu Kumar Dash Date Of Hearing 16.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-17, Mumbai, Dated 28.01.2019 For A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1.1 The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Making An Addition Of Rs.4,96,08,000 Under Section 56(2)(Viib) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act') Being The Difference Between The Share Premium Received By The Appellant From Its Holding Company & The Fair Market Value Of The Shares There Of As Computed Under Rule 11Ua Of The Income-Tax Rules, 1962( The Rules") & Cit(A) In Confirming The Same 1.2 The Assessing Officer Erred In Holding The Issue Price Of Right Shares To Existing Shareholder Of The Company Which Were Adopted On The Basis Of A Valuation Report Of An Independent Valuer As Exorbitant On Reasons Purely In The Realm Of Conjectures/Surmises Without Appreciating That The Same Is In Accordance With Provisions Of The Act & Cit(A) In Confirming The Same. 1.3 It Is Submitted That Valuation Is An Art & Not A Science. The Valuation Are Based On Certain Assumptions & Estimations Especially In Case Of New Company. The Valuation Has Been Done Based On The Dcf Method

For Appellant: K. GopalFor Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(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 ... assessee company has introduced any non-genuine funds and option to determine the fair market value on the basis of either the DCF or NAV method. 7. In the light of the above facts and finding the we consider that ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Circle-3, Ferozepur vs. Measage Om Sons Marketing Private Limited, Faridkot

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

ITA 407/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 37(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

verified, there was no option to the AO but to reject the DCF I.T.A. No.407/Asr/2019 3 Assessment Year: 2015-16 method and go by NAV method to determine the FMV of the shares. (iv) The CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction on account of interest on delayed payment ofTDS/TCS without ... 23rd February, 2018 does not deal with the primary grievance of the petitioner. This, even after he concedes with the method of valuation namely, NAV Method or the DCF Method to determine the fair market value of shares has to be done/adopted at the Assessee's option. Nevertheless, he does

Thinkstations Learning Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-8(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 9824/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 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

Thinkstations Learning Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-25(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7345/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 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

Ai-Yaseen Trading Co.P.Ltd, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Meerut

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

ITA 6244/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14
Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

accordance with Rules 11U & 11UA of Income Tax Rules. The Ld. A.O. valued the share of assessee company by using Net Asset Value (“NAV”) method and arrived at Rs.21 per share to be the Fair Market Value. Hence, as against the total amounts received in the sum of Rs.49 ... 11UA of the Rules, the assessee has an option to do valuation of shares and determine fair market value either using DCF method or NAV method and Assessing Officer cannot examine or substitute his own value in place of value determined. Page 7 of 9 M/s AI-Yaseen Trading

Manhar Yarns Private Limited, Ballabgarh vs. ITO Ward-1(5), Faridabad

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 97/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sumangla Saxena, Adv &For Respondent: . Arvind Kumar Bansal
Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)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 ... 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

Movefast Tour & Travels Pvt. Ltd, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward-1(5), Faridabad

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 96/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 96/Del/2021 (A.Y. 2016-17) Movefast Tour & Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito Plot No. 1066, Baba Nagar, Near Ward-1(5) Janta Barat Ghar, Faridabad, C. R. Building, Faridabad Haryana Haryana Pan No. Aaicm2608P ( Respondent ) ( Appellant )

For Appellant: Sumangla Saxena, Adv &For Respondent: . Arvind Kumar Bansal
Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 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 ... 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

Nelumbo Paints Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Haryana

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 85/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sumangla Saxena, Adv &For Respondent: . Arvind Kumar Bansal
Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 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 ... 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

Abhi Soaps Private Limited, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(1), Faridabad

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 79/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sumangla Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 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 ... 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

Movefast Automobiles Private Limited, Haryana vs. ITO Ward-1(5), Faridabad

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 101/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sumangla Saxena, Adv &For Respondent: . Arvind Kumar Bansal
Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)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 ... 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

Madhava Home Decor Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(5), Faridabad

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 82/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sumangla Saxena, Adv &For Respondent: . Arvind Kumar Bansal
Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 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 ... 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

Quick Technologies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-20(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 7353/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 56(2)(vii)

valuation of the shares of Mail Today has been done under DCF method and the valuation of assessee share has been done on NAV method. The reason being, the valuation report for the valuation of the shares by the Mail Today as on 20.7.20012 was shown under DCF method, wherein

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sodexo Facilities Management Services India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2945/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopaldcit, Sodexo Facilities Circle-13(2)(2), Management Services बनाम/ Mumbai. India Pvt.Ltd., 1St Floor, Vs. Gemstar Commercial Complex, Ramchandra Lane, Extension Kanchpada, Malad West, Mumbai-400064. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabcs4166M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri A.N.Bhalekar, Sr.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mrunal Parekh सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 16/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 25/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Om Prakash Kant- Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.09.2022 Passed By Ld Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“In Short The Ld. Cit(A)”]For Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2012-13, Raised Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri A.N.Bhalekar, Sr.ARFor Respondent: Shri Mrunal Parekh
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 43(6)(c)Section 50B(3)

which was worked out by the valuer following the PECV method, whereas the assessee has followed average value of PECV method as well as NAV method to justify the sale consideration actually received. We are of the opinion that ld Assessing Officer has not carried out valuation by an independent

Strides Arcolab Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 15(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1903/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 92C

Company as on date. Further, the valuation was carried out and as such no specific method for valuation was prescribed. The Net Asset Value (‘NAV’) method is appropriate for valuation of shares. Reliance can be placed in this regard on the following wherein NAV method has been considered ... authorities below. He further submitted that the assessee has not benchmarked this transaction in the first place. The TPO has determined the value by NAV method and determined the adjustment. The DRP has taken the DCF method and determined the adjustment. The assessee has claimed that the value was determined

Cnr Leading Softek Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 6(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7801/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2023AY 2013-14
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

unquoted equity shares = 1,81,90,445/- divided by 8,67,000/- = 20.98 per share. The assessee submitted that using Net Asset Value (NAV) Method was in accordance with Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules which is the prescribed method for the purpose of section 56(2)(viib ... valuation adopted by the assessee, we hold that addition made by the ld. AO would have no legs to stand. In any case, NAV method adopted by the assessee is one of the recognized methods provided in rule 11UA of the Rules. Accordingly, the addition made

DCIT, Circle-14(2), New Delhi vs. Kissandhan Agri Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8734/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Atul Ninawat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

share determined in the valuation report of CA by applying DCF method holding the same to be devoid of substance. The Assessing Officer invoked NAV method as provided in Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules for the purposes of determination of FMV under Section 56(2)(viib ... substantiate its action regarding higher premium. However, the AO did not accept the DC method employed in the report of auditor and adopted the NAV method as per book value which comes to Rs. 11.54/- per share. Accordingly, the difference of two (22.21 - 11.54) i.e. Rs. 10.67/- per share

Planet Gogo Private Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward-3(2), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1526/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2016-17

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

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 ... 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