Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Intermesh Shopping Network Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Related Assessment Year : 2016-17
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Intermesh Shopping Network Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) DCF Valuation Cannot Be Rejected Just Because Projections Differ- Disclaimer in Valuation Report Not a Ground to Junk DCF Method: AO Should Have Referred to Valuation Officer —56(2)(viib) Addition Deleted Mumbai Tribunal examined validity of addition of ₹8,39,55,840 u/s 56(2)(viib) arising from share premium collected on allotment of equity shares. Assessee had obtained DCF-based valuation from a qualified CA; projections, discounting rate & methodology were confirmed by the valuer in statement u/s 131. AO rejected the valuation so...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.

Author Bio

CA Vijayakumar Shetty qualified in 1994 and in practice since then. Founding partner of Shetty & Co. He is a graduate from St Aloysius College, Mangalore . View Full Profile

My Published Posts

Penny Stock Addition Fails: ITAT Says Suspicion Cannot Replace Evidence Borrowed Satisfaction: ITAT Quashes Penny Stock Additions in Multiple Family Cases Statement Alone Cannot Justify ‘On-Money’ Addition: ITAT Mumbai Genuine ITR Mistake Cannot Lead to Tax on Wrong Income: ITAT Mumbai AO Cannot Reopen on the Same Material Examined in U/s 153C Assessment: ITAT Quashes ₹2.90 Crore Addition View More Published Posts

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Post by Date
June 2026
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930