← 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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6171/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 251Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

held that the Assessing Officer cannot examined or substitute 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

Asst CIT 11(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Zoeteis India Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3285/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2010-11
Section 50C

respect of transfer of leasehold rights in land and building (b) Addition to long term capital gain by adopting sale consideration under NAV method as against DCF method adopted by the assessee. 2. The facts relating to the case are stated in brief. The assessee company is engaged ... rendered on this issue. 5. The next issue relates to determination of capital gain by substituting the value of sale consideration by adopting NAV method. The facts relating to the same are stated in brief. M/s. RFCL Ltd is a company incorporated under the Companies

Essar Investments Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2195/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi D Hande
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)

obtained by the Appellant from an independent valuer, the value of one share of ECL was determined at INR 4.97 following Net Asset Value (NAV) Method. The independent valuer had also determined value of the share by using Profit Earning Capacity Value (PECV) Method, however, since same was coming ... simply concluded that DCF Method is the correct method to be employed in the facts and circumstances of the case without specifying that NAV method is incorrect. The TPO simply stated that CCA guidelines are not binding and have been prescribed for a different purpose. He further submitted that

Crown Chemicals Pvt Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT 15 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7876/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

share will not make the premium justified and explained. The ld. AO arrived at the book value per share using Net Asset Value (NAV) method and arrived the fair market value at Rs.2603/- per share as against Rs.9600/- per share arrived by the assessee using DCF method ... however disregarded the contentions of the assessee and based on the above observations, proceeded to determine the fair market value per share based on NAV method at Rs.2603/- per share. Since the premium amount received by the assessee was Rs.5,93,75,000/- (6250 shares * Rs 9500 per share

Sb Industrial Engineering Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in I

ITA 861/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. T. Shanmugam, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

adopted by the Assessee for valuation of shares is not correct and thus rejected the DCF Method and had adopted the Net Asset Value [NAV] Method, as prescribed under the Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules and had determined the share price at Rs.18.97 per share as against ... shares at Rs.108/- per share. The Assessing Officer has determined the share price at Rs.18.97 per share as per the Net Asset Value [NAV] method. However, the Assessee has determined the share price at Rs.107.95 per share on the Discounted Cash-Flow [DCF] Method. The Assessing Officer had rejected

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. M/S Bioworth India Private Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 679/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, C.A by RevenueFor Respondent: Shri K Sankar Ganesh, JCIT (DR) by
Section 133(6)Section 37

year 2000, at different prices, which according to him was done to suit the needs of the company. He has further contended that the NAV Method adopted by the company to value the shares was Page 17 of 27 not justifiable. The primary contention cited by him is that

M/S. Waterline Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 388/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Waterline Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 10Th Floor, Gamma Block, Of Income Tax, Sigma Soft Tech Park No.07, Circle 7(1)(2), Airport Varthur Road, Bangalore. Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aaacw 8059N Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Pranav Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals)-7, Bengaluru Dated 27.3.2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised 18 Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Page 2 Of 20

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 271Section 40Section 56(2)(viib)

method and if the assessee has so opted for DCF method, the AO cannot discard the same and adopt other method i.e. NAV method of valuing shares. In the case of M/s. Rameshwaram Strong Glass (P) Ltd. vs. The ITO (Supra), the tribunal has reproduced relevant portion of another tribunal ... 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

M/S Information Technology Park Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-11(2), Bangalore

ITA 1358/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)

preference shares at a premium based on the valuation done the expert valuer by adopting the Net Asset Value (NAV) method. The TPO accepted the method of valuation adopted by the assessee i.e., NAV method, but reworked the redemption value based on book value of assets. The TPO arrived ... taxes (DDT).” 8. The ld. AR submitted that (i) The method of valuation is undisputed since TPO has accepted the method of valuation i.e. NAV method but has considered the book value of the land and building instead of guideline value which resulted in the ITA Nos.1357 & 1358/Bang/2018 Page

M/S Information Technology Park Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1)(4), Bangalore

ITA 1357/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)

preference shares at a premium based on the valuation done the expert valuer by adopting the Net Asset Value (NAV) method. The TPO accepted the method of valuation adopted by the assessee i.e., NAV method, but reworked the redemption value based on book value of assets. The TPO arrived ... taxes (DDT).” 8. The ld. AR submitted that (i) The method of valuation is undisputed since TPO has accepted the method of valuation i.e. NAV method but has considered the book value of the land and building instead of guideline value which resulted in the ITA Nos.1357 & 1358/Bang/2018 Page

Dy CIT. Circle-1, Thane vs. M/S Travecom Global P. Ltd., Bhayander

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 59/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Circle 1 V. M/S. Travecom Global Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 22, B-Wing B/607, Krishnakunj 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park Salasar Brij Bhoomi Wagle Industrial Estate Bhayander (W)-401101 Thane (W)-400604 Pan: Aaect8729Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji Department By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

from method as held by numerous Court assessee. The AO therefore proceeded on Rulings], best judgment assessment to determine FAIR MARKET VALUE relying on NAV Method. Procedural non-compliance and best Assessee has complied with each and judgement order. IT AT order (para 13) every notice of the AO providing ... issued by the submission was filed with the learned AO Assessing Officer and therefore AO explaining the basis of projections with proceeded to apply NAV method under reference to track record of the team. All best judgement assessment. backups for projections were placed on record While there has been full

ACIT Circle-3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Chemicon Engineering Consultant Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 833/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7907/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Chemicon Engineering बिधम/ Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Room No.607, Aayakar Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 833/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) बिधम/ Chemicon Engineering Room No.607, Aayakar Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2686H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & Revenue Respectively Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-08, Mumbai Dated 29.11.2019 For The A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Both The Parties Are As Follows: Assessee Grounds: - 1. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 (The “Act”) & A.Ys.2013-14 Chemicon Engineering That By The Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act So Far It Relates To In Confirming Of The Additions To The Extent Of A) Rs. 6,22,05,000/- Received From Certain Companies Out Of Total Rs. 13,13,50,000/- In Respect Of Shares Allotted Against Share Application Money;

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM

Chemicon Engineering Consultant Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 3 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7907/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7907/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Chemicon Engineering बिधम/ Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Room No.607, Aayakar Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 833/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) बिधम/ Chemicon Engineering Room No.607, Aayakar Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2686H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & Revenue Respectively Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-08, Mumbai Dated 29.11.2019 For The A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Both The Parties Are As Follows: Assessee Grounds: - 1. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 (The “Act”) & A.Ys.2013-14 Chemicon Engineering That By The Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act So Far It Relates To In Confirming Of The Additions To The Extent Of A) Rs. 6,22,05,000/- Received From Certain Companies Out Of Total Rs. 13,13,50,000/- In Respect Of Shares Allotted Against Share Application Money;

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM

M/S. Te Connectivity Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 300/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.300/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Sheshadri & Ms. Amulya K., CAsFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

Rules, 1962, every assessee has an option to do valuation of shares and determine its Fair Market Value either by DCF method or NAV method, and that the Assessing Officer cannot examine or substitute his own value in place of the value so determined. The ITAT Delhi Bench ... 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

DCIT Circle-15 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Rankin Infrastructure Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Ground No. 2 and 3 raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7288/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Circle – 15(3)(1) V. M/S. Rankin Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 451, 4Th Floor Next To Classic Marble Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Subash Nagar Road, Bhandup (E) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai -400078 Pan: Aafcs5275B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal Department By : Shri T. Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 56(2)(viib)

OFCDs OFCDs into OCRPS Rs.29.98 Crores ₹.32.29 crores [Page 13 of the [page 42 of the pb] pb] 2. OBJECTION OF THE NAV METHOD: (a) To recollect, the appellant has obtained valuation report dt 27.03.2018 from the Chartered Accountants, Further, valuation of Rs M/s G.K.Choksi & Co. Refer, pages ... such case, of equity shares is Rule 11UA has no applicability. The learned AO erred nothing but a in erroneously, equating this valuation to NAV method. dishonest effort of the AH allegations and comments of the learned AO in the assesses to increase Remand report concerning basis of valuation

Dy CIT 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Chiripal Poly Films Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 7052/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr AdvFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 56Section 68

method of valuation after rejecting the taxpayers valuation, the AO had the authority to carry out its own independent valuation and adopt the NAV method for this purpose 2) on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition made

Givaundan(India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Ltu Cr 1, Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 229/BANG/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Mar 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 229/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Givaudan (India) The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of Plot No. 26, 2Nd Cross, Income Tax, Jigani Industrial Area, Ltu, Bangalore – 562 106. Circle – 1, Vs. Pan: Aaacv7454J Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sumeet Khurana, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit- Revenue By I Date Of Hearing : 11-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaiit Is Submitted That The Main Appeal Was Heard By This Tribunal & Order Was Passed On 02/08/2019. However Grounds 6 & 7 Were Not Adjudicated Independently For Assessment Year 2010- 11. The Assessee Preferred Mp No.15/Bang/2020 Requesting For Adjudication Of These Grounds. 2. Accordingly The Present Appeal Is Fixed For Hearing For Adjudication Of Following Grounds: “6. That The Learned Ao & The Learned Panel Erred Both In Facts & Law In Confirming The Action Of The Learned Tpo Of Making An Adjustment To The Transfer Price Of The Appellant In Respect Of The Payment Of Royalty By Rs.27,67,42,242, Holding That The International Transaction

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, CA

observed that the Appellant did not report this transaction in Form 3CEB. Further, the Ld.TPO benchmarked the transaction based on “Net Asset Value (“NAV”) method” for valuation of shares [@ INR 372,931,848] and compared it against the share valuation adopted by the assessee using the Earning Per Share ... therefore, is subject to of the Transfer Pricing regulations. The learned Panel also held that the Ld.TPO was justified in making adjustment based on “NAV method” as the method followed in accordance with RBI guidelines does not consider the provisions of Chapter X of the Act. On receipt

DCIT 6 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Kilitch Healthcare India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross objection is held to be infructuous

ITA 7061/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viia)Section 56(2)(viib)

taxed as income. A.O. noticed that in this case 3 M/s. Kilitch Healthcare India Ltd. the book value of share as per NAV method was Rs.208, whereas value as per the method employed by the assessee was worked out FMV of preferential share at Rs.1000. A.O. called for the valuation ... purpose of valuation of unquoted equity shares under 56(2) (viib) Explanation (a)(i), the assessee has an option of choosing one among the NAV method or DCF method. Whereas the Rule 11UA(1) lays down the method to be followed for valuation of share for other purposes under section

Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as directed above

ITA 4675/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Asst. Commissioner Income Asian Paints Ltd. Tax, (Large Taxpayer Unit)-2, 6A Shanti Nagar, Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), World Trade Centre, Cuffee Mumbai-400 055 Vs. Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaaca3622K Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of 6A Shanti Nagar, Income Tax-Ltu Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400 055 World Trade Centre, Cuffee Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Sr Dr Respondent By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02 .2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Am: 01. These Are Cross Appeals Filed By Asian Paints Ltd [Appellant/Assessee] & The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax – Large Taxpayers Unit

For Appellant: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr DRFor Respondent: Shri
Section 14ASection 35

final value of the target ITA No.4675 & 3290/Mum/2015 Asian Paints Ltd; AY 10-11 company comes determined at $ 1 per share. The valuation Under NAV method was made with reference to historical cost of the assets owned by the company on the valuation date and in case of the subsidiaries ... rationales for those subsidiaries. 070. Further coming to another report dated 6 January 2014 of Shah and Co shows that the valuation as per NAV method is US$ 0.74 per share. We failed to understand that in buyback of shares how the net asset value method will give the fair

M/S. Fortigo Network Logistics Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2174/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri G.S. Prashanth, A.RFor Respondent: Sri M.K. Biju, D.R
Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

case of Agro Portfolio P Ltd (2018)(94 taxmann.com 112), the AO rejected DCF method and proceeded to determine the value of shares under NAV method. The AO determined the value of shares at Rs.2,770.12. Accordingly, he determined the excess share premium amount as under:- On shares issued ... method and if the assessee has so opted for DCF method, the AO cannot discard the same and adopt other method i.e. NAV method of valuing shares. In the case of M/s. Rameshwaram Strong Glass (P) Ltd. vs. The ITO (Supra), the tribunal has reproduced relevant portion of another tribunal

Intelligrape Software Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-12(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9042/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 9042/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Intelligrape Software Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, C/O Sanjiv Sapra & Associates Llp, Ca, Circle-12(2), C-763, New Friends Colony, New Delhi New Delhi-110025 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabci9247F Assessee By : Sh. Sanjiv Sapra, Fca Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjiv Sapra, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

calculated as per the provision of rule 11UA of I.T. Rules 1961. Calculation of value 5 Intelligrape Software Pvt. Ltd. per share under NAV method on the basis of audited figure of financial statement of FY 2014-15: As at 31/03/2015 a) Total Asset excluding Misc 1163,23,538 Expenditure ... been held that the Assessing Officer cannot substitute his own value in place of the value determined either on DCF method or NAV method, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed.” 13. In the absence of any change in the material facts and legal proposition, we hereby allow