Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(ITAT) 6624
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH)
Vimal Kumar, JM
TECHPARK HOTELS PVT LTD GURGAON – Appellant
Versus
ADDI. CIT SPECIAL RANGE-9 NEW DELHI – Respondent
ITA for AY 2015-16
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sh. Nikhil Agarwal, Shri Nirmal Malpani
AO cannot reject assessee's DCF valuation of shares certified by CA under Rule 11UA and substitute NAV for s.56(2)(viib) addition absent statutory power; projections not judgable by hindsight, investor acceptance binding.
Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 56(2)(viib) read with Rule 11UA - Fair market value of unquoted shares - Discounted Cash Flow method adopted by assessee and certified by chartered accountant cannot be rejected by AO by substituting Net Asset Value method without enabling provision in statute - Valuation is not exact science, based on future projections available at valuation date, not to be judged by hindsight of subsequent actuals - AO lacks power to tinker with valuation report from prescribed expert using prescribed DCF method merely on ground of unsubstantiated projections or commercial decisions - Even if projections not achieved, acceptance by arm's length investors evidences commercial prudence - Addition on alleged excessive share premium deleted. (Paras 6 to 9)
(B) Income Tax Rules, 1961 - Rule 11U - Valuation date defined as date of receipt of consideration - Balance sheet for NAV to be as on valuation date or immediately preceding - Choice of valuation method (NAV or DCF) vests solely with assessee - Revenue cannot independently adopt alternate method if assessee's report flawed, absent recorded reasons and statutory empowerment. (Paras 4.3, 4.4, 8)
(C) Appellate jurisdiction - Tribunal not to question assessee's commercial wisdom or investor decisions unless demonstrably perverse - Projections inherently approximate, influenced by future uncertainties; rejection solely for variance with actuals unsustainable. (Para 7 quoting Cinestan)
Facts of the case:
Assessee company issued shares at premium to holding company, whose funds sourced from reputed investors; return filed declaring loss; AO added amount as excessive premium u/s 56(2)(viib) using NAV after rejecting DCF valuation for unrealistic projections; CIT(A) upheld; assessee appealed to Tribunal.
Findings of Court:
AO's rejection of DCF method and adoption of NAV illegal; addition of Rs.9,06,45,649/- set aside; other grounds academic.
Issues: Whether AO can reject DCF valuation certified by expert, substitute NAV, and tax excess premium where shares subscribed by unrelated investors based on future growth projections.
Ratio Decidendi: If assessee adopts prescribed DCF method via qualified valuer, AO cannot reject on unsubstantiated projections or actual variance, lacking power to substitute own valuation; burden on assessee discharged by report, investor acceptance validates prudence; deeming provision not to expand beyond statutory prescription.
Result: Appeal allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against cit(a) order on s.56(2)(viib) addition. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. assessee justifies dcf valuation and share issuance. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. revenue defends rejection of dcf, adopts nav. (Para 5) |
| 4. ao cannot reject ca-certified dcf valuation. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. appeal allowed, dcf method upheld. (Para 10) |
PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM:
The appeal filed by the Assessee is against order dated 11.09.2019 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] arising out of assessment order dated 30.12.2017 of the Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2015-16.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return declaring loss of Rs.23,06,28,106/- on 30.11.2015. Notice u/s 143(2) dated 22.09.2016 was issued. Notices u/s 142(1) were issued. Sh. Nikhil Agarwal & Shri Nirmal Malpani, CA appeared and filed details. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 30.12.2017 made additions of Rs.34,94,381/- and Rs.9,06,45,649/-. Against order dated 30.12.2017 of Ld. AO, assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was partly allowed vide order dated 11.09.2019.
3. Being aggrieved, appellant assessee filed present appeal on following grounds:
“Re: General
1. That the Id. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)'] erred on facts and in law in upholding the order passed by the assessing officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').
Re: Disallowance made under section 56(2) (vii) (b) of the Act
2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in affirming the addition of Rs.9,06,45,649, on account of alleged excessive premium received on issuance of shares in terms of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act.
3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding that the premium charged by the appellant on shares issued was unjustified and unsatisfactory without considering the detailed justification provided by the appellant.
4. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in rejecting the Discounted Cash Flow ['DCF'] method for valuation of shares and in considering the Net Asset Value ['NAV'] method without appreciating that the FMV of the shares was computed keeping in view the future growth of the enterprise and was certified by a Chartered Accountant.
5. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in failing to appreciate that the estimates are made considering the future growth of the entity and any prident investor would invest its money only when he is sure of a reasonable return.
6. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in stating that the appellant was unable to adduce any cogent evidence justifying the high projection of revenue whereas, as a matter of fact, the appellant furnished detailed explanation to corroborate the reasons for differences between estimated projections vis-à-vis actual numbers and also elaborated that the reasons for such variation was a result of certain unforeseen factors.
7. That the CTT(A) erred on facts and in law in failing to appreciate that NAV method cannot be taken as the price at which transaction would take place in case of going concern and moreover, valuation of share is, in essence, a prophesy as to the future and must be based on facts available about future at the required date of valuation and not based on historical information.
8. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in alleging that the projected growth rate and the terminal factor as stated in the share valuation report issued by the Chartered Accountant is too high and without any basis.
9. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the appellant was a 100% subsidiary of Triguna Hospitality Ventures (India) Pvt. Ltd. (parent company) and the premium on share issue was on account of a capital account transaction and does not give rise to any income.
10. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that even
