TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thod of DCF by holding that the actual Revenues varied from the projected Revenues for the four Assessment Years. Admittedly, when a projected value is taken, it is an estimate. The variation in the estimate is also less than 10%. Therefore, it cannot be said that the projected revenues are fabricated or manipulated. Further, the fact that the assessee has adopted a method prescribed under the Act and no error in respect of the said method has been specifically pointed out. Just because, there is a minor variation in the estimate, that method cannot be rejected. This being so, we find no reason to interfere in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on this issue as recorded. - Decided in favour of assessee. Inordinate delay in service of the Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for which, the Revenue has filed necessary application for condonation of delay. The Ld.AR has not raised any serious objection on the same. Consequently, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeals are disposed off on merits. 4. In the Revenue s appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds: In ITA No.2013/Chny/2018 for the AY 2013-14: 1. The order of the learned CIT(A) is contrary to law and facts and circumstances of the case. On the issue of limitation of time for assessment 2. The CIT(A) erred in holding that the AO should have treated the part valuation report as final valuation report and completed the assessment. 3. The CIT(A) erred in holding that AO should have completed the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat there is no basis for the Discount factor adopted by the assessee company as at l6%. 4. The CIT (A) has erred in holding that the huge difference between the actual sale revenue and the projected revenue, as adopted by it while computing in DCF method, say in AY 16-17 to the extent of 24 %, and which works out to be a variation to the extent of the sales revenue, as a marginal variation. 5. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the learned CIT (A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored. 5. There are two issues, one in respect of the issue of limitation and the second issue which is common for both the AYs, being issue of share premium. 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order having been passed on 31.10.2016, was barred by limitation. It was a submission that 30.10.2016 was a Sunday and so the order passed on 31.10.2016 was not liable to be held to be barred by limitation. It was a further submission that on merits the Ld.CIT(A) further went on to hold that the marginal difference between the actual sales revenue and the projected sales revenue was justified and the Ld.CIT(A) had held that the assessee company had the privilege to choose the option between the NAM and the Discounted Cash Flow method (in short DCF ) for arriving at the valuation of the shares. The Ld.CIT(A) went on to hold that the assessee company had been reasonable in its DCF valuation and had consequently, deleted the addition made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced that the assessee has adopted Rule 11UA for the purpose of valuing its shares and the share premium received. This is accepted method of valuation and the said method of valuation does provide for estimation. The AO has adopted the NAM and for the purpose of the same has proceeded to re-value the assets of the assessee being the valuation of the land. The AO has discarded the assessee s method of DCF by holding that the actual Revenues varied from the projected Revenues for the four Assessment Years. Admittedly, when a projected value is taken, it is an estimate. The variation in the estimate is also less than 10%. Therefore, it cannot be said that the projected revenues are fabricated or manipulated. Further, the fact that the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
