IStar Skill Development (P) Ltd. v. ITO

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 4404 (Bang-Trib) IN THE ITAT, BANGALORE 'B' BENCH A.K. GARODIA, A.M. & BEENA PILLAI, J.M. IStar Skill Development (P) Ltd. v. ITO ITA No. 762/Bang/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 19 October, 2020 Appellant by: C. Sundeep, C.A Respondent by: Priyadarshi Mishra, Joint Commissioner (Departmental Representative) ORDER *Beena Pillai, J.M.* Present appeal has been filed by assessee against Order, dated 9-1-2018 passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals)-3, Bangalore for assessment year 2014-15 on following grounds of appeal :-- '1. That the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in so far it is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant is bad and erroneous in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have held that the assessing officer has no jurisdiction to go beyond the valuation report issued by chartered accountant. 3. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in holding that the DCF method adopted by the appellant for valuation of shares is irrational and does not have relevance to the factual financial results of the assessee company. 4. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in holding that the valuation report cannot be relied upon because the Chartered Accountant did not verify the projections provided by the appellant.' SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 4404 (Bang-Trib)

IN THE ITAT, BANGALORE 'B' BENCH

A.K. GARODIA, A.M. & BEENA PILLAI, J.M.

IStar Skill Development (P) Ltd. v. ITO

ITA No. 762/Bang/2018

A.Y. 2014-15

19 October, 2020

Appellant by: C. Sundeep, C.A

Respondent by: Priyadarshi Mishra, Joint Commissioner (Departmental Representative)

ORDER

Beena Pillai, J.M.

Present appeal has been filed by assessee against Order, dated 9-1-2018 passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals)-3, Bangalore for assessment year 2014-15 on following grounds of appeal :--

'1. That the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in so far it is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant is bad and erroneous in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have held that the assessing officer has no jurisdiction to go beyond the valuation report issued by chartered accountant.

3. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in holding that the DCF method adopted by the appellant for valuation of shares is irrational and does not have relevance to the factual financial results of the assessee company.

4. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in holding that the valuation report cannot be relied upon because the Chartered Accountant did not verify the projections provided by the appellant.'