Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court Daily-Wage Employees Treated As Permanent Under 1988 Government Resolution Entitled To Annual Increment Benefits: Supreme Court

Method of Valuation Cannot Be Substituted by the AO, Choice Vesting Solely in the Hands of the Assessee – Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark decision, the Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by Agra Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., setting aside the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s (ITAT) order which upheld the Assessing Officer’s (AO) rejection of the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method for share valuation in favor of the Net Asset Value (NAV) method.

The Court In ITA 1385/2018 held that the method of valuation under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, is a choice that rests exclusively with the assessee, not to be substituted by the AO.

Background and Appeal: The appeal arose from the valuation of shares in Assessment Year 2014-15. The appellant had initially valued its shares using the DCF method, which was rejected by the AO in favor of the NAV method, leading to a disputed valuation.

Authority of AO and Choice of Method: The Court observed that Rule 11UA(2) gives the assessee the option to choose between DCF and NAV methods. The AO’s role is to scrutinize the valuation report within the chosen method, not to substitute it.

Judicial Precedents: The Court relied on Bombay High Court’s decision in Vodafone M-Pesa Limited and other ITAT judgments, emphasizing that the AO cannot substitute the valuation method selected by the assessee.

Detailed Scrutiny of Valuation Report: While the AO can doubt or reject a valuation report, the statute doesn’t empower them to independently evaluate shares using a different method than chosen by the assessee.

Decision: Appeal Allowed: The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside ITAT’s order.

Remand to AO: The matter was remitted to the AO for fresh valuation using the DCF method.

Liberty to AO: The Court granted liberty to the AO to have the FMV determined independently by a valuer using the DCF method.

This judgment reinforces the principle that the choice of valuation method under the Income Tax Act lies with the assessee and cannot be unilaterally altered by the tax authorities.

Date of Decision: April 04, 2024

Agra Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PR. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 & Anr.

 

Latest Legal News