“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ramesh Jaisinghani, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 980/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 50(2)(ec)Section 55(2)(aa)Section 55(2)(ac)Section 55(2)(as)Section 56(2)(ac)

cost of acquisition of such asset, and (ii) lower of- (A) the fair market value of such asset and (B) the full value of consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset Explanation For the purposes of this clause- (a) "fair market value" means ... tabulated as under: Sr. No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1 Cost of acquisition per share (FMV as on 500.00 31.01.2018) 2 Full value of consideration per share 537.63 3 Capital gain per share before expenses [(2) 37.63 - (1)] 4 Number of shares sold 20,71,963 5 Aggregate capital gains before

Sugee Seven Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 2(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 2316/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

project being land or building or both, in the hands of the land owner shall be the amount which is deemed as full value of consideration under the said proposed provision. These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2018 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year

Sugee Seven Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 2(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 2315/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

Sugee Seven Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 2(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 2314/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

Sugee Seven Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 2(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 2313/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

Deputy Commissioner, Mumbai vs. Gaurav Investments, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5053/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Room No.656, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 ............... Appellant V/S Gaurav Investments, 1St Floor, B & C Block, Tradelink, E-Wing, ……………… Respondent Kamala Mill Compounds, Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400023 Pan: Aadfg0064D

For Appellant: Shri Kshitiji Kasi ViswanathFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 43C

determined by the DVO is less than 10% of the consideration received, and therefore, the consideration received should be deemed to be the full value of consideration. In this regard, the assessee placed reliance upon the decision of the Tribunal in its own case for the assessment year ... does not exceed 110% of the consideration received and therefore, the consideration as received by the assessee should be deemed to be the full value of consideration for the purpose of computing profit and gain from transfer of the immovable properties as per 1st proviso to section 43CA

DCIT 42 1 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Satyendra Kumar Triloknath Goyal, Mumbai

ITA 4421/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 250Section 43CSection 66Section 68Section 69C

sale consideration. Therefore before proceeding further we will look at the provisions of section 43CA which read as under - 43CA. - Special provision for full value of consideration for transfer of assets other than capital assets in certain cases. (1) Where the consideration received or accruing as a result

ACIT, Circle-26(2), New Delhi vs. Vng Impex P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5917/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 44ASection 68

claimed short term capital loss of Rs.23,37,52,919 and the break up given in the return of income as under:- (i) Full value of consideration Rs.30,18,87,030/- Less : (ii) Cost of acquisition Rs.53,56,39,950 Balance : (-) Rs.23,37,52,920/ 5. When the assessee

Precious Bjuildtech Private Limited, Bareilly vs. PCIT, Bareilly

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

ITA 66/LKW/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.66/Lkw/2022 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Precious Buildtech Pvt Ltd V. Pcit Harmony Apartment, Adiacent Income Tax Department, To Bedi International School, Bareilly-243001. Dental College Road, Pilibhit Bypass Road, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aagcp1255R अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Mazhar Akram, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24 07 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 30 09 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mazhar Akram, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

value adopted, assessed or assessable for the purpose of payment of stamp duty, such stamp duty value will be taken as the full value of consideration for the purpose of computing business income. However, the AO has not examined this aspect. No relevant details or evidences have been obtained whether ... value adopted, assessed or assessable for the purpose of payment of stamp duty, such stamp duty value will be taken as the full value of consideration for the Purpose of computing business income. However, the AO has not examined this aspect. No relevant details or evidences have been obtained whether

ACIT Central Circle 2(3), Ahmedabad vs. Vrajlal Babulal Bambharoliya, Ahmedabad

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1132/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Section 132Section 153CSection 250

evidence which would allow him to substitute the recorded consideration by any other figure as permitted under the law, to arrive at "full value of consideration Further, in CIT v. Shivakami Co. Pvt. Ltd (1986) 159 ITR 71 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that unless there is evidence

ACIT Central Circle 2(3) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Arvindkumar Babulal Bambharoliya, Ahmedabad

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1131/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 153CSection 250

ACIT Central Circle 2(3) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Ashokkumar Babulal Bambharoliya, Ahmedabad

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1130/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 153CSection 250

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Subhash Road Dehadun vs. M/S Times Square, Sahastradhara Road

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 42/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43CSection 69A

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the CIT (A) is justified in considering the actual sale consideration as full value of consideration in respect of ten properties in view of the provision as contained in the 1 proviso of the section 43CA (1) Page ... stamp duty authority does not exceed 105% of the consideration received as a result of transfer then it is deemed to be full value of consideration. As per the ground raised, we observe that assessee has claimed that the amendment made to section 43CA are retrospective in nature. On similar

Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Circle 8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground No. 9 to 14 is allowed

ITA 2639/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 254(1)Section 45(4)Section 48

which was by chance the same piece of land originally contributed by the assessee as a capital contribution. The assessee has not shown full value of consideration / market value received against it, it's right and re-entered the same value of Rs.8.00 crores, which was the value of land

Meenaz Anjum Dayatar, Govandi vs. The ITO, Ward-1(8), Bhavnagar

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

ITA 1174/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 45Section 68

transferred one of the immovable property for Rs 1,15,00,000/-. The Ld. AO has computed income at full rates tax on full value of consideration without allowing any Cost of Acquisition, including indexation thereon. Tax u/s 45 only be levied at special rates on Taxable Capital Gains

Tata Communications Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the assessee

ITA 3515/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiatata Communications Limited Pr. Cit, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Mumbai-1 Vs. M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 2808 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. D. Mistri Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal, At The Instance Of The Assessee, Assails Order Dated 21.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, Both On Jurisdictional Issues As Well As On Merits, However, There Is Consensus Between The Parties That The Appeal Can Be Decided On Merits, In Which Event, There Is No Need To Go Into Various Other Issues Raised In Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri J. D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 112Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50

section (1) and (2) of section 50. Since in this case sub section (1) is applicable, which provides that, where the full value of consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer of the assets together with the full value of such consideration received or accruing as a result

Deluxe Recycling India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2046/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21 Assistant Commissioner Of Deluxe Recycling India Income Tax-4(1)(1), Private Limited Mumbai 13 17 Dady Sheth Agiary Vs. Lane, Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002 (Pan: Aaacd8909N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deluxe Recycling India Private Assistant Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax-4(1)(1), 13 17 Dady Sheth Agiary Lane, Mumbai Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002 (Pan: Aaacd8909N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56Section 56(2)(x)

value adopted or assessed or assessable by the Stamp valuation Authority does not exceed 10% of the consideration received shall be taken as full value of consideration, i.e., if the difference is less than 10%, the same can be taken as fair market value. Though this provision is brought

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Deluxe Recycling India Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 1969/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56Section 56(2)(x)

ACIT -7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6574/MUM/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2005-06 Assistant Commissioner Of Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Income Tax-7(1)(1), Ltd. Mumbai Mazdock House, Dockyard Vs. Road, Mazagon, Mumbai – 400010 (Pan: Aaacm8029) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Prateek Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Umashankar Prasad, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

said reasons, ld. Assessing Officer further noted that capital gains in respect of the said transaction has been computed by adopting full value of consideration at an amount of Rs.318 lakhs. According to the ld. Assessing Officer, provisions of section 50C shall apply to the said transaction ... take the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority (SVA) as full value of consideration which has not been done by the assessee. He further noted that valuation as per the SVA will definitely be much more than the value adopted by 3 Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders

Mr. Suresh Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 16(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4752/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jotwani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Bhagat, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 43CSection 48Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)(x)

assessee is less than the value determined by the stamp valuation authority, the value so determined would be deemed to be the full value of consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer, for computing capital gain. By Finance Act, 2018, the third proviso to section