Assessee issued share capital at premium and valued shares adopting discounted cash flow method (DCF method). Assessing Officer directed assessee to furnish valuation of shares as per rules 11U and 11UA by using net asset method (NAV) on ground that actual performance of assessee-company showed losses whereas DCF statement showed projected profits. Assessing Officer held that there was wide variation between valuation of shares as per NAV method and DCF method and thus, made additions under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition. On appeal the Tribunal held that for purpose of determining fair market value of unquoted shares provisions of rule 11UA (2) gave right to assessee to exercise options available for valuation of shares, therefore, Assessing Officer could not withdraw DCF method exercised by assessee by adopting NAV method of valuation merely for reason that there was deviation in actual figures from projected figures the Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the method adopted by the Assessee required to examine method adopted by assessee and additions. (AY. 2013-14)
Dy. CIT v. Credtalpha Alternative Investment Advisors (P.) Ltd. (2022) 193 ITD 502 / 94 ITR 596 / 215 TTJ 801 / 210 DTR 100 (Mum.)(Trib.)
S. 56 : Income from other sources-Share capital at premium-Discount cash flow method (DCF)-Net asset method (NAV)-AO could not adopt NAV method merely for reason that there was deviation in actual figures from projected figures shown in DCF method-Deletion of addition is affirmed. [S. 56(2)viib), R. 11U, 11UA]