आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA.No.1686/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Ascentech Engineering Solutions Private Limited, The DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad - 500 051. vs. Hyderabad. Telangana. Telangana.

PAN AAKCA9922C (Applicant) (Respondent)

MS Sree Lekha, Advocate िनधा१ौरती (cid:554)ारा/Assessee by :

राज(cid:830) व (cid:554)ारा/Revenue by : Sri Mathivanan S A, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 04.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06.03.2026 आदेश/ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT :

This appeal has been by the Assessee against the Order dated 05.09.2025 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-2018.

2. The solitary issue arises in this appeal of the assessee is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) is justified in upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/sec.56(2)(vii) read with Rule 11UA of I.T. Rules, 1962 by rejecting the valuation determined based on Discounted Cash Flow [in short “DCF”] method and substituted by applying the Net Asset Method [in short “NAV”].

3. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the assessee has issued the shares during the year under consideration having face value of Rs.10/- @ Rs.70/- per unquoted equity share with a premium of Rs.60/- per share. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has referred to the valuation report placed at page nos.70 to 74 of the paper book and submitted that the valuer has determined the value of the share by selecting the DCF method and the calculation is given in the annexure to the valuation report placed at page no.71 of the paper book. The Assessing Officer did not accept the valuation of the assessee and proceeded to determine the fair market value of the shares of the assessee by adopting the NAV and thereby, made the disallowance of the entire premium of Rs.45 lakhs while passing the impugned order. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that it is well settled law as laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts as well as various Benches of this Tribunal the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to substitute the method of valuation as selected and chosen by the assessee. She has relied upon the following Judgments:

(i) Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Agra Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., vs. PCIT-1 & Anr.

ITA.No.1385/2018 dated 04.04.2024;

(ii) Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT-2 vs. M/s. Cinestaan Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., ITA.No.1007/2019 & CM Appeal No.54134/2019 dated 01.03.2021;

(iii) Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT [2018] 92 taxmann.com 73 (Bom.);

(iv) Order of ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of Grene Robotics (India) Private Limited vs. ITO, Ward-2(2)

ITA.No.152/Huyd./2024 dated 02.01.2025;

(v) Order of ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of Dhola Infra Projects Limited vs. ACIT in ITA.No.800/

Hyd./2024, dated 17.10.2024;

(vi) Order of ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/s. Phenix Procon Pvt. Ltd., ITA.No.1032/Ahd./2019 dated

25.01.2024;

(vii) Order of ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of JCIT vs.

M/s. MLR Auto Limited ITA.No.115/Hyd./2021 dated 28.12.2023;

(viii) Order of ITAT, Bangalore in the case of Innoviti Payment Solutions (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Bengaluru [2019] 175 ITD 10 (Bangalore-Trib.);

(ix) Order of ITAT, Delhi in the case of Cinestaan Entertainment (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), New Delhi [2019] 106 taxmann.com 300 (Delhi-Trib.);

(x) Order of ITAT, Jaipur in the case of Rameshwaram Strong Glass (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Ajmer [2018] 96 taxmann.com 542 (Jaipur-Trib.);

4. On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that the Assessing Officer has given the basis of re