Held that the Assessing Officer could not have rejected the DCF method adopted by the valuer and determined the value of shares based on the NAV under R. 11UA. The assessee-company issued shares at a premium to its promoters, and the promoters subsequently sold the shares to a foreign company at a much higher price. The AO has not brought on record any evidence to question the genuineness of the transaction; the addition made under S. 56(2)(viib) is not sustainable. (AY. 2017-18)