ITAT Deletes Share Capital & Share Premium Additions; Upholds DCF Valuation and Business Expense Claim:

ITAT Deletes Share Capital & Share Premium Additions; Upholds DCF Valuation and Business Expense Claim

ITAT holds Section 68 conditions satisfied, quashes Section 56(2)(viib) addition, and sets aside CIT(A)’s income enhancement for lack of notice

ITAT Quashes Section 68 and Section 56(2)(viib) Additions in Share Premium Case

authorMeetu KumaridateJan 23, 2026
Last update on Jan 23, 2026
ITAT Deletes Share Capital & Share Premium Additions; Upholds DCF Valuation and Business Expense Claim Rivet Health Club Pvt. Ltd. filed its return for AY 2015-16, declaring income of Rs. 2.15 lakh. In the relevant year, it issued 2.35 lakh equity shares at Rs. 40 per share (face value of Rs. 10 + a premium of Rs. 30), raising Rs. 94 lakh from five corporate investors. During a limited scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3), the Assessing Officer treated the share capital and premium as unexplained under Section 68, made a protective addition under Section 56(2)(viib) by rejecting the DCF valuation, disallowed business expenses, and added interest income based on Form 26AS.
NFRA Cracks Down on Audit File Lapses: 60-Day Completion Rule, 7-Day Submission Deadline, Many More
The CIT(A) partly upheld the additions and enhanced income without issuing a specific show-cause notice, prompting the assessee’s appeal before the Tribunal. Issue Before Tribunal: Whether share capital and premium received from corporate investors were liable to addition under Section 68 and Section 56(2)(viib), and whether the CIT(A) could enhance income and sustain disallowances without following due process. Tribunal's Decision: The Bench allowed the appeal in full. It held that the assessee had discharged the onus under Section 68 by furnishing complete evidence establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the investors. In the absence of any contrary material, the addition under Section 68 was deleted.
NFRA Cracks Down on Audit File Lapses: 60-Day Completion Rule, 7-Day Submission Deadline, Many More
The Tribunal further held that the DCF valuation carried out by a qualified expert could not be rejected merely on subjective grounds or hindsight, and therefore, the protective addition under Section 56(2)(viib) was unsustainable. The disallowance of business expenses was deleted on the ground that once a business is set up, routine expenses are allowable even during periods of low activity. The addition based on Form 26AS mismatch was also deleted. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below

About Author

Meetu Kumari

Content Manager

Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2162
Up Next

Loading suggestions…