The department says my DCF projections never came true. Is that enough to tax my share premium?
No. Valuation is a question of fact and is not an exact science, so a forecast cannot be rejected by comparing it with actual revenues in hindsight. The Revenue must show the methodology adopted was demonstrably wrong.
Decided by the High Court (Delhi High Court, Division Bench — Manmohan and Sanjeev Narula JJ (per taxscan report); AY 2015-16) on 2021-03-01, reported as [2021] 433 ITR 82 (Delhi); decided 1 March 2021. It bears on section 56(2)(viib), section Rule 11UA(2)(b), section 2(24)(xvi), section 133(6), section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Gifts, Shares & Angel Tax and Cash Credits & Unexplained Money matters.
The High Court puts the burden squarely on the department: rejecting a recognised method without showing what is wrong with it, and without offering any alternative fair value, is not enough. Two facts did the work here — the method was a recognised one prescribed by Rule 11UA(2)(b), and the shares were taken up by outside investors rather than a sister concern or closely related person. Where the subscribers are connected parties, expect the department to press harder. As with the Tribunal order it affirms, s.56(2)(viib) is stated to be inapplicable from AY 2025-26, so this applies to earlier years.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
For assessment year 2015-16 the assessee, a start-up formed to produce and distribute films, received share premium of Rs 90,95,46,200 on equity issued to three outside investors — Anand Mahindra (Rs 80,95,85,365, on shares issued 6 January and 23 February 2015), Rakesh Jhunjhunwala (Rs 4,99,80,793) and Radhakishan Damani (Rs 4,99,80,793, both on 24 March 2015). The shares were priced on a Chartered Accountant's valuation report dated 15 December 2014 using the discounted cash flow method, one of the methods stipulated by s.56(2)(viib) read with Rule 11UA(2)(b). The Assessing Officer disregarded the report, principally because the revenue projections used did not match the actual revenues of later years, held that no effort had been made to achieve the projections and no basis for them had been shown, and objected that the money had been put into zero per cent compulsorily convertible debentures of an associate company rather than into income-yielding instruments. He took the fair market value of the premium at nil and added the whole Rs 90.95 crore. He had also issued notices under s.133(6) to all three investors, who confirmed the transactions, and the venture agreement was on record. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the addition; the Tribunal deleted it; the Revenue appealed.
The Revenue's appeal was dismissed on the footing that the question of law it urged is purely based on facts and does not call for consideration as a question of law (para 14). The Court held that valuation is a question of fact depending on appreciation of material or evidence, and that the methodology adopted by the assessee and accepted by the Tribunal is a conclusion of fact drawn on the basis of the material available (para 13). The test laid down by the courts for interfering with a valuer's findings was not satisfied: the assessee adopted a recognised method of valuation, and the Revenue was unable to show that it had adopted a demonstrably wrong approach, or that the valuation was made on a wholly erroneous basis, or that it committed a mistake going to the root of the valuation process (para 13). Challenging a valuation because performance did not match projections lacks material foundation and is irrational, since the valuation is intrinsically based on projections which can be affected by various factors (para 13). The Revenue had the option to conduct its own valuation on either the DCF or the NAV method; the Assessing Officer simply rejected the assessee's valuation and offered no alternate fair value (paras 13). That the shares were subscribed by outside investors rather than a sister concern or closely related person was a further point: if they saw potential and accepted the valuation, the Revenue cannot question their wisdom (para 13).
The Court began from the fact that notices under s.133(6) had gone to all three investors and had been answered, and that the venture agreement was on record, so that identity, creditworthiness and genuineness were established and the nature and source of the credit stood accepted (para 11). It then set out the Tribunal's paragraphs 32 to 36 in full — that the Rules give the assessee the option of DCF or NAV, that Rule 11UA(2) gives the Assessing Officer no power to substitute his own value, that projections rest on growth, market and business conditions and cannot be evaluated on arithmetical precision, and that the subscribers were outside investors whose commercial prudence the Revenue was in effect questioning (para 12). Its own conclusion followed: the Tribunal had applied the Supreme Court's approach to an assessee's commercial prudence; the law requires fair market value to be determined by a prescribed methodology; the valuation was carried out on information available at the date of valuation and a projection of future revenue; and because performance did not match projections the Revenue sought to attack the valuation, an approach that lacks material foundation and is irrational. The courts have repeatedly held that valuation is not an exact science and cannot be done with arithmetic precision; it is a technical and complex problem better left to the wisdom of experts in accountancy, having regard to the imponderables that enter the valuation of shares (para 13).
The Courts have repeatedly held that valuation is not an exact science, and therefore cannot be done with arithmetic precision. It is a technical and complex problem which can be appropriately left to the consideration and wisdom of experts in the field of accountancy, having regard to the imponderables which enter the process of valuation of shares.
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. Valuation is a question of fact and is not an exact science, so a forecast cannot be rejected by comparing it with actual revenues in hindsight. The Revenue must show the methodology adopted was demonstrably wrong. This was decided by the High Court (Delhi High Court, Division Bench — Manmohan and Sanjeev Narula JJ (per taxscan report); AY 2015-16) and bears on section 56(2)(viib), section Rule 11UA(2)(b), section 2(24)(xvi), section 133(6), section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as [2021] 433 ITR 82 (Delhi); decided 1 March 2021. The High Court puts the burden squarely on the department: rejecting a recognised method without showing what is wrong with it, and without offering any alternative fair value, is not enough. Two facts did the work here — the method was a recognised one prescribed by Rule 11UA(2)(b), and the shares were taken up by outside investors rather than a sister concern or closely related person. Where the subscribers are connected parties, expect the department to press harder. As with the Tribunal order it affirms, s.56(2)(viib) is stated to be inapplicable from AY 2025-26, so this applies to earlier years. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Establish on record that the subscribers are outside investors and not sister concerns or closely related persons.
For assessment year 2015-16 the assessee, a start-up formed to produce and distribute films, received share premium of Rs 90,95,46,200 on equity issued to three outside investors — Anand Mahindra (Rs 80,95,85,365, on shares issued 6 January and 23 February 2015), Rakesh Jhunjhunwala (Rs 4,99,80,793) and Radhakishan Damani (Rs 4,99,80,793, both on 24 March 2015). The shares were priced on a Chartered Accountant's valuation report dated 15 December 2014 using the discounted cash flow method, one of the methods stipulated by s.56(2)(viib) read with Rule 11UA(2)(b). The Assessing Officer disregarded the report, principally because the revenue projections used did not match the actual revenues of later years, held that no effort had been made to achieve the projections and no basis for them had been shown, and objected that the money had been put into zero per cent compulsorily convertible debentures of an associate company rather than into income-yielding instruments. He took the fair market value of the premium at nil and added the whole Rs 90.95 crore. He had also issued notices under s.133(6) to all three investors, who confirmed the transactions, and the venture agreement was on record. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the addition; the Tribunal deleted it; the Revenue appealed. The matter was decided on 2021-03-01 by the High Court (Delhi High Court, Division Bench — Manmohan and Sanjeev Narula JJ (per taxscan report); AY 2015-16). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed on the footing that the question of law it urged is purely based on facts and does not call for consideration as a question of law (para 14). The Court held that valuation is a question of fact depending on appreciation of material or evidence, and that the methodology adopted by the assessee and accepted by the Tribunal is a conclusion of fact drawn on the basis of the material available (para 13). The test laid down by the courts for interfering with a valuer's findings was not satisfied: the assessee adopted a recognised method of valuation, and the Revenue was unable to show that it had adopted a demonstrably wrong approach, or that the valuation was made on a wholly erroneous basis, or that it committed a mistake going to the root of the valuation process (para 13). Challenging a valuation because performance did not match projections lacks material foundation and is irrational, since the valuation is intrinsically based on projections which can be affected by various factors (para 13). The Revenue had the option to conduct its own valuation on either the DCF or the NAV method; the Assessing Officer simply rejected the assessee's valuation and offered no alternate fair value (paras 13). That the shares were subscribed by outside investors rather than a sister concern or closely related person was a further point: if they saw potential and accepted the valuation, the Revenue cannot question their wisdom (para 13).
The Court began from the fact that notices under s.133(6) had gone to all three investors and had been answered, and that the venture agreement was on record, so that identity, creditworthiness and genuineness were established and the nature and source of the credit stood accepted (para 11). It then set out the Tribunal's paragraphs 32 to 36 in full — that the Rules give the assessee the option of DCF or NAV, that Rule 11UA(2) gives the Assessing Officer no power to substitute his own value, that projections rest on growth, market and business conditions and cannot be evaluated on arithmetical precision, and that the subscribers were outside investors whose commercial prudence the Revenue was in effect questioning (para 12). Its own conclusion followed: the Tribunal had applied the Supreme Court's approach to an assessee's commercial prudence; the law requires fair market value to be determined by a prescribed methodology; the valuation was carried out on information available at the date of valuation and a projection of future revenue; and because performance did not match projections the Revenue sought to attack the valuation, an approach that lacks material foundation and is irrational. The courts have repeatedly held that valuation is not an exact science and cannot be done with arithmetic precision; it is a technical and complex problem better left to the wisdom of experts in accountancy, having regard to the imponderables that enter the valuation of shares (para 13). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "The Courts have repeatedly held that valuation is not an exact science, and therefore cannot be done with arithmetic precision. It is a technical and complex problem which can be appropriately left to the consideration and wisdom of experts in the field of accountancy, having regard to the imponderables which enter the process of valuation of shares." The decision followed or applied Cinestaan Entertainment (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2019] 106 taxmann.com 300 / [2019] 177 ITD 809 (Delhi-Trib.) — the order under appeal, whose paras 32 to 36 the Court set out and accepted.
It was decided by the High Court on 2021-03-01 and is reported as [2021] 433 ITR 82 (Delhi); decided 1 March 2021. Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 56(2)(viib), section Rule 11UA(2)(b), section 2(24)(xvi), section 133(6), section 68, 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. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed on the footing that the question of law it urged is purely based on facts and does not call for consideration as a question of law (para 14). The Court held that valuation is a question of fact depending on appreciation of material or evidence, and that the methodology adopted by the assessee and accepted by the Tribunal is a conclusion of fact drawn on the basis of the material available (para 13). The test laid down by the courts for interfering with a valuer's findings was not satisfied: the assessee adopted a recognised method of valuation, and the Revenue was unable to show that it had adopted a demonstrably wrong approach, or that the valuation was made on a wholly erroneous basis, or that it committed a mistake going to the root of the valuation process (para 13). Challenging a valuation because performance did not match projections lacks material foundation and is irrational, since the valuation is intrinsically based on projections which can be affected by various factors (para 13). The Revenue had the option to conduct its own valuation on either the DCF or the NAV method; the Assessing Officer simply rejected the assessee's valuation and offered no alternate fair value (paras 13). That the shares were subscribed by outside investors rather than a sister concern or closely related person was a further point: if they saw potential and accepted the valuation, the Revenue cannot question their wisdom (para 13). It arises in Gifts, Shares & Angel Tax and Cash Credits & Unexplained Money matters, on section 56(2)(viib), section Rule 11UA(2)(b), section 2(24)(xvi), section 133(6), section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Delhi High Court, Division Bench — Manmohan and Sanjeev Narula JJ (per taxscan report); 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 to state precisely what in the methodology is demonstrably wrong and what alternative fair value he proposes, and record that no alternative was offered if none is. Where the show cause rests on actual revenues falling short of projections, answer that projections are affected by many factors and hindsight is not a proper basis for rejection. Keep the valuer's report identifying the Rule 11UA(2)(b) method relied on with the assessment record.
Still good law. Followed by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Thinkstations Learning (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2023] 155 taxmann.com 451 / [2023] 106 ITR(T) 1 / [2023] 203 ITD 384 (Delhi-Trib.), decided 4 July 2023, whose CASE REVIEW records this judgment as followed and which reproduces paragraphs 8 to 14 of it in full before directing deletion of a s.56(2)(viib) addition where the Assessing Officer had discarded a DCF valuation for the net asset value method. No decision disturbing it was found. Section 56(2)(viib) has been omitted with effect from assessment year 2025-26, so the judgment now 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 judgment is 1 March 2021 and the citation is [2021] 433 ITR 82 (Delhi); the ITA number could not be traced, and the subscription database carries the judgment only as a citation record without text — the reasoning used here comes from paragraphs 8 to 14 reproduced verbatim in Thinkstations Learning (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2023] 203 ITD 384 (Delhi-Trib.). Two cautions. The appeal was dismissed because the question urged was purely factual and did not call for consideration as a question of law (para 14), so the case is authority for the limits on attacking a valuer's conclusion, not for a free-standing rule about DCF. And the best-known passages associated with this case — that the Department cannot sit in the armchair of the businessman, and that Rule 11UA(2) gives the Assessing Officer no power to substitute his own value — belong to the Tribunal's order, which the High Court reproduces at para 12; cite Cinestaan Entertainment (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2019] 106 taxmann.com 300 / 177 ITD 809 (Delhi-Trib.) for them. Section 68 features only in the recital that the nature and source of the credit stood accepted, so do not use this as authority on unexplained credits. The ITA number and the coram were not established; the subscription database carries this judgment as a citation-only record, and its reasoning was read as reproduced in a later Tribunal order rather than from the judgment's own document. 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.
The Revenue's appeal was dismissed on the footing that the question of law it urged is purely based on facts and does not call for consideration as a question of law (para 14). The Court held that valuation is a question of fact depending on appreciation of material or evidence, and that the methodology adopted by the assessee and accepted by the Tribunal is a conclusion of fact drawn on the basis of the material available (para 13). The test laid down by the courts for interfering with a valuer's findings was not satisfied: the assessee adopted a recognised method of valuation, and the Revenue was unable to show that it had adopted a demonstrably wrong approach, or that the valuation was made on a wholly erroneous basis, or that it committed a mistake going to the root of the valuation process (para 13). Challenging a valuation because performance did not match projections lacks material foundation and is irrational, since the valuation is intrinsically based on projections which can be affected by various factors (para 13). The Revenue had the option to conduct its own valuation on either the DCF or the NAV method; the Assessing Officer simply rejected the assessee's valuation and offered no alternate fair value (paras 13). That the shares were subscribed by outside investors rather than a sister concern or closely related person was a further point: if they saw potential and accepted the valuation, the Revenue cannot question their wisdom (para 13).
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
You have a document that says so. Does that settle it?
If the department doubts my shareholders, can it add the money to my income?
You gave particulars, paid by cheque and got a confirmation. Has the burden shifted?
Can the whole of a bogus purchase be added, rather than a percentage?