The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that an Assessing Officer (AO) cannot discard a taxpayer’s valuation of shares carried out under the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method and replace it with the Net Asset Value (NAV) method merely because the officer is dissatisfied with the projections. 

The bench of C.N. Prasad (Judicial Member) and N.K. Billaiya (Accountant Member) ruled that once an assessee has opted for a statutorily recognized method under Rule 11UA, the Revenue cannot substitute it with another valuation methodology in the absence of any legal authority. 

The appellant/assessee is an education technology company engaged in providing integrated education and teacher training solutions, had issued 1,42,856 equity shares with a face value of ₹10 each at a premium of ₹130 per share, raising a total share premium of ₹1.85 crore during Assessment Year 2015-16. The company determined the fair market value (FMV) of its shares using the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method, supported by a valuation report prepared in accordance with Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules. 

Buy Now: INCOME TAX E-COMPILATION – JUNE 2026

During scrutiny assessment, however, the Assessing Officer rejected the DCF valuation, observing that it was based on projected cash flows and assumptions that did not reflect the company’s actual financial position. The AO instead applied the Net Asset Value (NAV) method, valuing each share at approximately ₹5.80, and treated the entire share premium of ₹1,85,71,280 as taxable income under Section 56(2)(viib). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the addition, leading the company to approach the Tribunal. 

Before the Tribunal, the assessee argued that Rule 11UA expressly permits an assessee to choose either the NAV method or the DCF method for valuing unquoted equity shares. Having exercised the option of the DCF method through a valuation prepared by a qualified professional, the Assessing Officer had no authority to disregard the chosen methodology and replace it with another recognized method merely because he disagreed with the projections.

The assessee further contended that valuation under the DCF method inherently involves future estimates and business projections, and these cannot be invalidated merely because the company’s future financial performance differs from those estimates. It also relied heavily on the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Principal CIT v. Cinestaan Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., where similar additions under Section 56(2)(viib) had been deleted. 

The Tribunal observed that the DCF method is one of the prescribed valuation methods under Rule 11UA and that an assessee has the statutory option to adopt it for determining the fair market value of unquoted shares.

Referring extensively to the Delhi High Court’s decision in Cinestaan Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal reiterated that valuation under the DCF method is based on future projections and commercial estimates, which cannot be judged with the benefit of hindsight by comparing them with actual subsequent financial performance.

The Bench emphasized that valuation is a specialized exercise requiring expert judgment and that tax authorities cannot substitute their own commercial wisdom for that of professional valuers or business management unless they demonstrate that the adopted methodology is fundamentally flawed or contrary to law.

The Tribunal further observed that there is no provision in the Income Tax Act or the Rules empowering an Assessing Officer to replace the assessee’s validly adopted DCF valuation with the NAV method simply because he is dissatisfied with the projections. It also noted that the genuineness of the investors or the share subscription had never been questioned by the Revenue. 

The Bench held that the facts of the present case were squarely covered by the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Principal CIT v. Cinestaan Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (433 ITR 82). In that decision, the High Court held that where a recognized valuation methodology such as DCF has been followed by an expert valuer, the Revenue cannot reject it merely because future business projections did not materialize as expected.

The High Court had also emphasized that tax authorities cannot sit in the armchair of a businessman to determine commercial prudence or question investment decisions made by independent investors. Relying on these principles, the Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer’s rejection of the DCF valuation was legally unsustainable. 

The ITAT set aside the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made under Section 56(2)(viib) for both Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-17, holding that the DCF valuation adopted by the assessee could not be replaced by the NAV method merely because the Assessing Officer disagreed with the assumptions underlying the valuation. 

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: ITAT Restores Dawoodi Bohra Jamat’s 12AB Registration Matter