Assessee allotted 5 percent non-cumulative redeemable preference shares to a company at rate of Rs. 20 per share, including share premium of Rs.10 per share. Assessing Officer held  that assessee had not furnished report from merchant banker with respect to computation and rational behind price of each share for purpose of rule 11UA and made addition. CIT(A) deleted the addition. On appeal the Tribunal held that by  going through remand report, whereby Assessing Officer had tried to rebut valuation report, which had come on record in form of additional evidence, it came up that Assessing Officer had questioned dividend discount valuation model (DDVM) which had used discount factor of 7.67 percent to arrive at valuation. Assessing Officer submitted that assessee had failed to substantiate discount figure and supporting documents for DDVM. Tribunal held that  valuation of shares was a technical and complex issue for which Assessing Officer had limited authority to tinker valuation of methodology applied. Further, valuation report deserved to be given status of statutory evidence with burden upon Assessing Officer to rebut same with evidences establishing either report was based on incorrect facts and figures, or otherwise, valuation method lacked sanctity to be considered as statutory evidence.In instant case, valuation report as submitted was good enough to explain valuation and, therefore, impugned addition made to income of assessee was to be set aside. (AY. 2017-18)