← All Phrases

“full value of consideration”

Capital GainsSection 48Section 48587 judgments

The decision most relied on for full value of consideration is CIT v. George Henderson & Co. Ltd. (66 ITR 622), cited in 82 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on full value of consideration

CIT v. George Henderson & Co. Ltd.
66 ITR 622 · 1967 · Supreme Court
82
citing judgments

The 'full value of consideration' for computing capital gains under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (or its predecessor, Section 12B of the 1922 Act), means the actual price bargained for and received or accrued by the parties. It does not refer to the market value or any notional value of the asset transferred.

Maria Fernandes Cheryl v. ITO (International Taxation)
123 Taxmann.com 252 · 2021 · ITAT
65
citing judgments

The amendment introducing a tolerance band (safe harbour) under section 50C, allowing a difference of up to 10% between actual sale consideration and stamp duty valuation, applies retrospectively. If the difference falls within this limit, the actual sale consideration is adopted as the full value of consideration for computing capital gains.

CIT v. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh
309 ITR 233 · 2009 · High Court
55
citing judgments

The full value of consideration for computing capital gains under Section 48 refers to the amount stated in the sale deed and cannot be substituted by the market value or a valuation by the DVO under Section 55A, unless there is evidence that the assessee actually received a consideration in excess of the stated amount.

CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co.
87 ITR 407 · 1973 · Supreme Court
51
citing judgments

The "full value of the consideration" for computing capital gains under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (or Section 12B(2) of the 1922 Act), means the price actually bargained for and agreed to by the parties, not the market value of the asset transferred. In a sale transaction involving a price, the market value of the consideration is not relevant.

Dharmashibhai Sonani v. ACIT
161 ITD 627 · 2016 · ITAT
48
citing judgments

Dharmashibhai Sonani holds that if a statutory proviso is declaratory and curative, intended to remedy unintended consequences of a main provision, it should be given retrospective effect. This principle applies when determining the effective date of such provisos, including the third proviso to Section 50C(1).

CIT v. Mother India Refrigeration Industries (P.) Ltd.
155 ITR 711 · 1985 · Supreme Court
47
citing judgments

Legal fictions and deeming provisions are created for definite purposes and must be limited strictly to that purpose, not extended beyond their legitimate field or the explicit mandate of the section. This principle requires strict interpretation of such provisions.

CIT v. Shakuntala Kantilal
190 ITR 56 · 1991 · High Court
45
citing judgments

Payments made by an assessee to release property from an encumbrance or settle disputes, which are essential for a sale transaction to materialize, are allowable as a deduction under Section 48 of the Income-tax Act for computing capital gains. Such expenditure either reduces the full value of consideration or is deductible from it.

Atul G. Puranik v. ITO
132 ITD 499 · 2011 · ITAT
43
citing judgments

Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is a deeming provision, applies only to the transfer of "land or building or both" and therefore does not apply to the transfer of leasehold rights.

Judgments citing full value of consideration

Vijay Krishnaji Sawant, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 32(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 8991/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarvijay Krishnaji Sawant Income Tax Officer-32(2)(1) Vijay Niwas, Ceaser Road, Kautilya Bhavan, Opp. Bombay Cambridge School, Mumbai-400 051 Vs. Amboli, Andheri Railway Station S.O., Mumbai-400 058 Pan/Gir No. Aapps 7027 Q (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Haridas Bhatt Respondent By : Shri Ankit Tiwari Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.03.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey:

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhattFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Tiwari
Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 54

adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority on the date of agreement may be taken for the purposes of computing full value of consideration for such transfer.” 10. Though, proviso was introduced by Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f. 01.04.2017, however, the proviso being a beneficial piece of legislation

ITO, New Delhi vs. Smt. Sudharshna Arora, New Delhi

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1185/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarita No.1185 /Del./2010, A.Y. 2004-05 Ito, Vs Smt. Sudharshna Arora Ward-24(4), . B-6/9, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaepa8154H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

first appellate authority had rightly noted that under section 48, the starting point for computation of capital gains is the amount of full value of consideration received or accruing as a result of a transfer of the capital asset. The first appellate authority had rightly observed that, what in fact

Kumar Talkies, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bareilly-New, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 588/LKW/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrakumar Talkies V. Income Tax Officer-1(1) Punjabi Market, Hospital Road, Fashion Point, 56, Civil Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Lines Near Prasad Cinema, Bareily-243001. Pan:Aaafk0045M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 254(3)Section 271Section 50C(2)

difference between the stamp value and sale consideration of the immovable property sold by the "appellant" merely by adopting stamp duty value as full value of consideration without referring the valuation to the valuation officer as provided in section 50C(2) of the Act and without considering other relevant material

Zarah Rafique Malik, Mumbai vs. ITO (Int Tax) Ward-3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5159/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Hon’Blezarah Rafique Malik Income Tax Officer, (Int.Tax) B/1703, Vivarea Condominium, Ward- 3(2)(1), Mumbai Vs. Sane Guruji Marg, Jacob Circle, Mahalaxmi East Mumbai – 400 011 Pan : Adcpm8960G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K Gopal, Adv. & Shri Oom KandalkarFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 153(1)

there would have perhaps been no question of capital gains. One way of looking at the problem could be to say that the full value of consideration in this case was not the apparent consideration, Le, Rs. 2,58,672 but Rs. 2,24,168 (Rs. 2,58,672 minus ... Legislature while using the expression 'full value of consideration has contemplated both additions to as well as deductions from the apparent value. What it means is the real and effective consideration. 7 ITA 5159/Mum/2025 Zarah Rafique Malik That apart, so far as clause (1) of section 48 is concerned

Sachinkumar Subrai Kanse, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 42(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 8140/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Bhagat, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

erred in confirming the action of Ld AO in making an 5 addition of Rs. 80,00,000/- by treating the full value of consideration as Long-term capital gains ignoring the indexed cost of acquisition and indexed cost of improvement 6. Without Prejudice to Ground

Sachinkumar Subrai Kanse, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer 42(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 8139/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Bhagat, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

erred in confirming the action of Ld AO in making an 5 addition of Rs. 80,00,000/- by treating the full value of consideration as Long-term capital gains ignoring the indexed cost of acquisition and indexed cost of improvement 6. Without Prejudice to Ground

Tiruchangodu Ramasamy Khannaiyann Sarasuwathi, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

ITA 3135/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT
Section 142A(6)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in adopting the guideline value as the full value of consideration by invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax Act despite the fact that the appellant had sought for reference

Pioneer Independent Trust, Bangalore vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-2, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1143/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Huilgol, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 55(2)(ac)

notice issued by him. The assessee also explained that on redemption of the units of the equity oriented mutual funds, the full value of consideration was lower than the rate as on 31/01/2018. Therefore there is no income available to tax under the Act. Again the assessee had enclosed

Subhash Chandra Agrawal, Vidisha vs. ITO, Vidisha

Appeal is allowed

ITA 354/IND/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2019-20 Subhash Chandra Ito, Agrawal, Vidisha बनाम/ Galla Mandi, Vs. Vidisha (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afrpa8769A Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri Jaideep Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/02/2026

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 50C

return of assessee u/s 143(1), the AO invoked section 143(1)(a)(ii), adopted the figure of Rs. 80,00,000/- as full value of consideration in terms of section 50C and, accordingly, made an addition/upward adjustment

Nirmalaben Kamleshbhai Contractor, Vadodara vs. Asstt. Unit, Current Juris.-the ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1911/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamblenirmalaben Kamleshbhai Assessment Unit, Vs. Contractor, Income Tax Department, At & Post Sama Gam, Current Jurisdiction Ao Near Gujarati School, Income Tax Officer, Jalaram Mandir, Ward 1(3)(1) Chhani Rd., Vadodara. Vadodara-390024. [Pan : Amipc4384 K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sanjay R Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Abhijit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 50CSection 54E

declaring total income of Rs.2,03,050/-. In the schedule of the return of income, capital gain was declared to the extent of full value of consideration adopted as per section 50C of the Act for the purpose of capital gains at Rs.1,85,42,000/-. As per return filed

Basetti Sadguna, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Sangareddy

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1546/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1546/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2012-2013 Basetti Sadguna The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 050. Ward-1, Vs. Telangana. Sanga Reddy–502001. Telangana. Pan Ajipb5254C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri C Maheshwar Reddy, Ca राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Suresh Babu Kn, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 25.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri C Maheshwar Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Sri Suresh Babu KN, Sr. AR
Section 148Section 50C

this because the liability is contemplated in SPA itself and certainly the same should be taken into account to determine the full value of consideration. Therefore, if sale consideration specified in the agreement is along with certain liability, then the full value of consideration for the purpose of computing capital ... subsequent contingent liability does not come within any of the items of the reduction and the same cannot be reduced, is erroneous because full value of consideration under Section 48 would be the amount arrived at after reducing the liabilities from the purchase price mentioned in the agreement. Even

Mukesh Vasantkumar Chandan, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3003/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 143(3)Section 250

presumptive basis. It was further submitted that section 43CA is a deeming provision, whereby the stamp duty valuation is deemed to be the full value of consideration for the purpose of computing business income in respect of transfer of land or building held as stock-in- trade. The learned Authorised

Sudhanshu Infrastructures Private Limited, Bhandup(W) vs. Circle 15(3)(2), Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai

ITA 7654/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Surji Chheda (Virtually present), ARFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 143(3)Section 48Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)(X)Section 56(2)(x)

Sudhanshu Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. accruing as a result of the transfer shall, for the purpose of section 48 be deemed to be the full value of consideration. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that since the inclusion of 3rd proviso to section 50C(1) was infused in the act after

Shilpi Modi, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(2), Kolkata

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1965/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2022-2023
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

land and Rs. 70,62,750/- for the structure. The Ld. PCIT noted that Mr. Ravi Modi had shown full value of consideration of Rs. 45,62,83,506/- and cost of acquisition of Rs. 86,38,98,998/- in the ITR for the AY 2018-19 thereby declaring

Ravi Modi, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(2), Kolkata

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1964/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2022-2023
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

land and Rs. 70,62,750/- for the structure. The Ld. PCIT noted that Mr. Ravi Modi had shown full value of consideration of Rs. 45,62,83,506/- and cost of acquisition of Rs. 86,38,98,998/- in the ITR for the AY 2018-19 thereby declaring

Adarsh Developers, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 22(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 7945/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 50CSection 50C(2)

section 50C of the Act, the stamp duty value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority is required to be treated as the deemed full value of consideration for the purpose of computation of income. That, in the present case, the assessee sold two immovable properties for ₹72,85,000, whereas

Surya Pratap Singh Chauhan, Lucknow vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 642/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Surya Pratap Singh Chauhan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 68/422, Gandhi Nagar, Lucknow- 2(1), Lucknow-New 226001 Pan: Awgpc6261P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Smt. Sonal Singh, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Dated 7.07.2025 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee That Were Filed Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessment Unit For The A.Y. 2018-19 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 On 3.03.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because The Notice Issued Under Section 148 Has Been Issued By The Jao, Which Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Section 151A Of The Act, The Entire Assessment Framed Is Bad In Law Be Quashed. 02. Because The Notice Under Section 148 Having Been Issued On 23.03.2022, Beyond The Period Of Three Years & The Total Investment In Bit Coin Trading Is Of Rs.9,63,000/-, There Being No Profit On The Same On The Contrary Being Loss, The Entire Reopening Of The Assessment Is Without Proper Verification Of Facts, Based On Wrong Facts The Addition Of Rs.88,55,128/- Made By The Ao & Upheld By The Cit(A) Be Deleted. 03. Because The Cit(A), Nfac, Has Failed To Appreciate The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Has Arbitrarily Upheld The Addition Of Rs.88,55,128/- Under Section 69 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Being Unexplained Investment In Purchase & Sale Of Bitcoins, Which Addition Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law, The Addition Made Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sonal Singh, JCIT DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69

Schedule-CG of ITR form, in which cost of acquisition without indexation was shown at Rs. 88,14,708/- and full value of consideration was shown at Rs. 84,80,234/- from the investment in 2 Surya Pratap Singh Chauhan A.Y. 2018-19 bitcoin. The ld. AO noted that

Jagdish Kanhaiyalal Khushalani, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(3) Nagpur, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 690/NAG/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur11 Feb 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Section 154Section 250Section 50C

through banking channel, therefore, stamp duty valuation on the date of agreement may be taken for the purpose of computing the full value of consideration for such transfer. He also submitted that stamp duty valuation on the date of agreement to sale in F.Y. 2011-12 is less than ... adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority on the date of agreement may be taken for the purposes of computing full value of consideration for such transfer: Provided further that the first proviso shall apply only in a case where the amount of consideration, or a part

Shaik Afsar Hussain, Kurnool vs. ITO., Ward-1, Kurnool

ITA 1293/HYD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Officer, wherein, an amount of Rs.53.97,288/- is determined as capital gain, considering the value adopted for the purpose of stamp duty as full value of consideration. 6. The learned Commissioner erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer wherein, an amount of Rs.53,98,288/-is 6 determined

Chandra Lalit Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7535/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2017-18 Chandra Lalit Sanghvi, Income Tax Officer, 25-26, 6Th Floor, Ward-19(1)(1), Western Court Building, Vs. Piramal Chamber, 83, Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400012. Marine Drive, Mumbai-400002. Pan : Acips3131J (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ketan Vajani For Revenue : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 02-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 5O

Finance Act, 2002, has inserted a new section 50C in the Income-tax Act to make a special provision for determining the full value of consideration in cases of transfer of immovable property". Section 50C, thus, on a conceptual note, is a provision to address capital gains tax evasion