The AO threw out my DCF valuation and taxed the whole share premium. Can he do that?
No. Rule 11UA(2) gives the assessee the option to value by DCF or NAV, and once a prescribed expert has valued by a prescribed method the officer has no jurisdiction to tinker with it, reject it or substitute his own figure.
Decided by the ITAT (ITAT Delhi Bench 'B' — Amit Shukla (JM) and L.P. Sahu (AM); I.T.A. No. 8113/DEL/2018; AY 2015-16) on 2019-05-27, reported as [2019] 106 taxmann.com 300 / 177 ITD 809 / (2019) 180 DTR 65 / 200 TTJ 459 (Delhi)(Trib.) — IT Appeal No. 8113 (Delhi) of 2018, AY 2015-16. It bears on section 56(2)(viib), section Rule 11UA(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Gifts, Shares & Angel Tax matters.
This is the answer to the standard angel tax show cause that rejects a CA's DCF report and fixes fair market value at nil. It also kills the most common line of attack on DCF — that the projections did not come true — because the method turns on projections made at the valuation date and cannot be re-opened with actuals three or four years later. Subscription by independent outside investors is treated as supporting the value, so identify who put the money in. Note the scope has shrunk: s.56(2)(viib) is stated to be inapplicable from AY 2025-26, so this governs earlier years only.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
Cinestaan Entertainment, a film production start-up incorporated in September 2013, received share premium of Rs. 90,95,46,200 from three independent investors — Anand Mahindra, Rakesh Jhunjhunwala and Radhakishan Damani. The company obtained a Chartered Accountant's valuation report using the DCF method. The Assessing Officer rejected that valuation, determined fair market value at nil, and added the entire premium under section 56(2)(viib).
Appeal allowed and the addition set aside. Under Rule 11UA(2) the assessee has the option to determine fair market value by either the DCF Method or the NAV Method; the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to tinker with, reject or substitute a valuation made by a prescribed expert using a prescribed method.
At para 29 the Bench read the Explanation to section 56 as requiring fair market value to be determined by the prescribed method, and rule 11UA(2) as prescribing two: net asset value, or discounted cash flow certified by a merchant banker or chartered accountant. At para 30 it held the assessee had the option to choose between them, and set out why the valuer's projections rested on a reasoned basis. At para 31 it recorded that the Assessing Officer had not disputed the details of the projects, revenues or costs, nor shown the methodology or contents of the report to be wrong. At para 32 it held that both authorities had questioned the assessee's commercial wisdom in investing the funds raised in zero per cent compulsorily convertible debentures of group companies, that the department cannot sit in the armchair of the businessman to decide what is profitable, and that rule 11UA(2) gives the officer no power to examine or substitute his own value or to tinker with the valuation — the officer here had substituted no method of his own but had simply rejected the assessee's. At para 33 it held section 56(2)(viib) is a deeming provision whose scope cannot be expanded; where the assessee adopts one of the prescribed methods the officer must accept it, there being no enabling provision allowing him to adopt his own DCF valuation or to have it valued by a different valuer. It distinguished the NAV method, which works on audited numbers, from DCF, which works on projections that turn on growth, market conditions, demand and supply, cost of capital and similar factors and cannot be tested by arithmetical precision — a value relevant at the valuation date may not be relevant later. At para 34 it held that neither the officer nor the assessee is recognised in law as an expert, so a valuation by a prescribed expert on a prescribed method cannot simply be rejected. At para 35 it noted the shares were subscribed not by a sister concern but by outside investors of standing, whose commercial prudence the revenue was in effect questioning, and refused to uphold the officer's nil valuation and the addition of Rs. 90.95 crores. Separately, at paras 27 and 28, it recorded that the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and the genuineness of the transaction were established and undisputed, and that section 56(2)(viib), being a deeming fiction aimed at tax abuse, must be construed strictly.
Even the prescribed rule 11UA (2) does not give any power to the Assessing Officer to examine or substitute his own value in place of the value determined or requires any satisfaction on the part of the Assessing Officer to tinker with such valuation.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo. Rule 11UA(2) gives the assessee the option to value by DCF or NAV, and once a prescribed expert has valued by a prescribed method the officer has no jurisdiction to tinker with it, reject it or substitute his own figure. This was decided by the ITAT (ITAT Delhi Bench 'B' — Amit Shukla (JM) and L.P. Sahu (AM); I.T.A. No. 8113/DEL/2018; AY 2015-16) and bears on section 56(2)(viib), section Rule 11UA(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as [2019] 106 taxmann.com 300 / 177 ITD 809 / (2019) 180 DTR 65 / 200 TTJ 459 (Delhi)(Trib.) — IT Appeal No. 8113 (Delhi) of 2018, AY 2015-16. This is the answer to the standard angel tax show cause that rejects a CA's DCF report and fixes fair market value at nil. It also kills the most common line of attack on DCF — that the projections did not come true — because the method turns on projections made at the valuation date and cannot be re-opened with actuals three or four years later. Subscription by independent outside investors is treated as supporting the value, so identify who put the money in. Note the scope has shrunk: s.56(2)(viib) is stated to be inapplicable from AY 2025-26, so this governs earlier years only. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Put the valuer's report and its workings on record and state in writing which of the two Rule 11UA(2) methods you exercised your option for.
Cinestaan Entertainment, a film production start-up incorporated in September 2013, received share premium of Rs. 90,95,46,200 from three independent investors — Anand Mahindra, Rakesh Jhunjhunwala and Radhakishan Damani. The company obtained a Chartered Accountant's valuation report using the DCF method. The Assessing Officer rejected that valuation, determined fair market value at nil, and added the entire premium under section 56(2)(viib). The matter was decided on 2019-05-27 by the ITAT (ITAT Delhi Bench 'B' — Amit Shukla (JM) and L.P. Sahu (AM); I.T.A. No. 8113/DEL/2018; AY 2015-16). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. Appeal allowed and the addition set aside. Under Rule 11UA(2) the assessee has the option to determine fair market value by either the DCF Method or the NAV Method; the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to tinker with, reject or substitute a valuation made by a prescribed expert using a prescribed method.
At para 29 the Bench read the Explanation to section 56 as requiring fair market value to be determined by the prescribed method, and rule 11UA(2) as prescribing two: net asset value, or discounted cash flow certified by a merchant banker or chartered accountant. At para 30 it held the assessee had the option to choose between them, and set out why the valuer's projections rested on a reasoned basis. At para 31 it recorded that the Assessing Officer had not disputed the details of the projects, revenues or costs, nor shown the methodology or contents of the report to be wrong. At para 32 it held that both authorities had questioned the assessee's commercial wisdom in investing the funds raised in zero per cent compulsorily convertible debentures of group companies, that the department cannot sit in the armchair of the businessman to decide what is profitable, and that rule 11UA(2) gives the officer no power to examine or substitute his own value or to tinker with the valuation — the officer here had substituted no method of his own but had simply rejected the assessee's. At para 33 it held section 56(2)(viib) is a deeming provision whose scope cannot be expanded; where the assessee adopts one of the prescribed methods the officer must accept it, there being no enabling provision allowing him to adopt his own DCF valuation or to have it valued by a different valuer. It distinguished the NAV method, which works on audited numbers, from DCF, which works on projections that turn on growth, market conditions, demand and supply, cost of capital and similar factors and cannot be tested by arithmetical precision — a value relevant at the valuation date may not be relevant later. At para 34 it held that neither the officer nor the assessee is recognised in law as an expert, so a valuation by a prescribed expert on a prescribed method cannot simply be rejected. At para 35 it noted the shares were subscribed not by a sister concern but by outside investors of standing, whose commercial prudence the revenue was in effect questioning, and refused to uphold the officer's nil valuation and the addition of Rs. 90.95 crores. Separately, at paras 27 and 28, it recorded that the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and the genuineness of the transaction were established and undisputed, and that section 56(2)(viib), being a deeming fiction aimed at tax abuse, must be construed strictly. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "Even the prescribed rule 11UA (2) does not give any power to the Assessing Officer to examine or substitute his own value in place of the value determined or requires any satisfaction on the part of the Assessing Officer to tinker with such valuation."
It was decided by the ITAT on 2019-05-27 and is reported as [2019] 106 taxmann.com 300 / 177 ITD 809 / (2019) 180 DTR 65 / 200 TTJ 459 (Delhi)(Trib.) — IT Appeal No. 8113 (Delhi) of 2018, AY 2015-16. Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A Tribunal decision binds the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) within that Tribunal's jurisdiction, and is persuasive before other benches. It is not binding on a High Court, and a contrary co-ordinate bench decision will be argued against you, so check whether the point has been taken the other way before you build a reply around it. On section 56(2)(viib), section Rule 11UA(2), the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. Appeal allowed and the addition set aside. Under Rule 11UA(2) the assessee has the option to determine fair market value by either the DCF Method or the NAV Method; the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to tinker with, reject or substitute a valuation made by a prescribed expert using a prescribed method. It arises in Gifts, Shares & Angel Tax matters, on section 56(2)(viib), section Rule 11UA(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by ITAT Delhi Bench 'B' — Amit Shukla (JM) and L.P. Sahu (AM); I.T.A. No. 8113/DEL/2018; AY 2015-16. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Ask the officer, in writing, to identify the provision that permits him to reject a valuation made by a prescribed expert using a prescribed method and to substitute his own figure. If the notice compares later actual results with the projections, answer that a DCF valuation is tested as at the valuation date and cannot be reviewed with hindsight. Record on file who the subscribers were and that they are independent outside investors, not connected parties.
Still good law. Affirmed by the Delhi High Court in PCIT v. Cinestaan Entertainment (P.) Ltd. [2021] 433 ITR 82 (Delhi), 1 March 2021. A later Bench in the assessee's own case has confirmed that affirmance: ACIT v. Cinestaan Entertainment (P.) Ltd. [2026] 185 taxmann.com 942 (Delhi - Trib.), 24 April 2026, records at para 20 that the valuation report of 15 December 2014 'cannot be doubted as the same has got approved by the Delhi High Court in the assessee's own case in immediately preceding year'. That same later order marks the limit of this decision: for AY 2016-17 the Bench held that a valuation report must be obtained separately for each assessment year and that the report obtained in the preceding year could not be relied on, and it remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh DCF valuation. Section 56(2)(viib) has since ceased to apply from AY 2025-26, so the ruling governs earlier years only. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The date of the order is 27 May 2019; the June date some secondary sources give is a publication date. Two limits are worth carrying. First, the decision is about an assessee who obtained a prescribed-method valuation before issuing the shares — in the same assessee's later year, AY 2016-17, the Tribunal held that the report must be obtained afresh for each year and that reuse of the earlier report was not permissible, and remanded for a fresh valuation (ACIT v. Cinestaan Entertainment (P.) Ltd. [2026] 185 taxmann.com 942 (Delhi - Trib.)). Second, section 56(2)(viib) does not apply from AY 2025-26, so this governs earlier years only. The text of the Delhi High Court's affirming order in PCIT v. Cinestaan Entertainment (P.) Ltd. [2021] 433 ITR 82 was not read; the affirmance is taken from the citation and from the later Tribunal order in the assessee's own case, which records it. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Appeal allowed and the addition set aside. Under Rule 11UA(2) the assessee has the option to determine fair market value by either the DCF Method or the NAV Method; the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to tinker with, reject or substitute a valuation made by a prescribed expert using a prescribed method.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
The department says my DCF projections never came true. Is that enough to tax my share premium?
Can the AO switch my valuation from DCF to NAV because the NAV figure suits him better?
Which investors are outside angel tax after the 2023 notifications, and does the section still apply at all?
The officer accepted part of my share premium as justified by the valuation certificate and taxed the rest. Can he split it like that?