“fair market value”

Capital GainsSection 55(2)Section 55(2)2,353 judgments

REGUS SOUTH MUMBAI BUSINESS CENTRE PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6104/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarregus South Mumbai Dcit - 14(1)(2), Business Centre Mumbai Private Limited, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. Level 4, Dynasty K. Road, New Marine Business Park, Andheri Lines. Mumbai- Kurla Road, J. B. Nagar 400 020 S.O, Mumbai – 400 059 Pan/Gir No. Aadcr6068H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved, Ld. Ar Revenue By Smt. Usha Gaikwad, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 26.03.2026

Section 143(3)

disprove the same. 32. We also note that there is no allegation that the impugned expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having regard to fair market value, nor has any disallowance been made under any specific anti-abuse provision. There is likewise no case made out that the payment represents capital

TECHPARK HOTELS PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ADDI. CIT SPECIAL RANGE-9, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 9450/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumartechpark Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Addl. Cit, Ground Floor, Central Wing, Special Range-9, Thapar House 124, Janpath, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aabce5833H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Shri Tavish Verma, Adv. Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra Sr. Dr Department By Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against Order Dated 11.09.2019 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2017 Of The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Declaring Loss Of Rs.23,06,28,106/- On 30.11.2015. Notice U/S 143(2) Dated 22.09.2016 Was Issued. Notices U/S 142(1) Were Issued. Sh. Nikhil Agarwal & Shri Nirmal Malpani, Ca Appeared & Filed Details. On Completion Of Proceedings, Ld. Ao Vide Order Dated Techpark Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234DSection 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

have correctly applied this provision to address the appellant's evident attempt to issue shares at values exceeding their fair market value (FMV). Techpark Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT  Capital Receipts as Income: The provision creates a statutory exception where share premiums, otherwise capital in nature, are taxed as income ... estimate the exact figure is beyond its control. At the time of making a valuation for the purpose of determination of the fair market value, the past history may or may not be available in a given case and therefore, the other relevant factors Techpark Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT

THE BOMBAY DYEING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 5274/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Jm\Nand\Nms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Am\N\Nita No.5274/Mum/2025\N(Assessment Year: 2018-19)\Nm/S. The Bombay Dyeing And\Nmanufacturing Company Limited,\Nneville House, Jn Heredia Marg,\Nballard Estate,\Nmumbai - 400 001\Npan: Aaact2328K\Nvs.\Nnational Faceless Appeal Centre,\Ndelhi (Deputy Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax, Central Circle-2(1)(1),\Nmumbai - 400001\N(Appellant)\N(Respondent)\Nassessee By\N:\Nshri Yogesh Thar, A.R.\Nms. Sukanya Jairam, A.R &\Nshri Saurabh Surana, A.R.\Nrespondent By\N:\Nshri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Ar\Ndate Of Hearing\N:\N22.12.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N:\N18.03.2025\Norder\Nper Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:\Nthis Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned\Ncommissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. Cit(A)' For Short], National Faceless\Nappeal Centre (‘Nfac' For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'),\Npertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.' For Short) 2018-19.\N2.\Nthe Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N“1. Ground No. 1: Disallowance Of Rs. 4,65,28,171/- Under Section 14A Of The\Nact:\N1.

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 250Section 43C

exempt dividend income and long-\nterm capital gains;\nd) For the purposes of computation of disallowance under Section 14A of the Act,\nthe fair market value of the investment was required to be considered, as opposed\nto the cost of investment adopted by the Appellant.\n1. 3. The Appellant therefore ... assessee has prepared its financial\nstatement as per “IND-AS” where the assessee is required to calculate the investments in\nequity shares at fair market value. The Ld. A.R. further relied on circular No.10/2017 dated\n23.03.2017 issued by the CBDT where it has specified that Income Computation and\nDisclosure Standard

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -28, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. MANOJ KUMAR SINGH, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8069/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 132ASection 153DSection 28

connection with sale of immoveable property (N- 28, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi) without conducting any independent enquiry or valuation to ascertain the fair market value of the said property and ignoring the consideration and circle rate mentioned in the sale deed. Unexplained Investment in Properties

MANOJ KUMAR SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT(A) CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6383/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 132ASection 153DSection 28

SHALBY LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1005/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(ib)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

case land value has been increased by Rs. 3,59,91,825/- post adjustment of certain CWIP expenses, the valuer has determined fair market value of shares and accordingly, the allotment took place. The assessee company also submitted before the Assessing Officer that the investor M/s. MG finvest

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SAFAL ENGINEERS AND REALTIES LLP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the appeal\nof the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1731/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Section 143(3)

nThe appellant therefore respectfully prays that:\n1. The direction given by the Ld. CIT(A) to the Ld. AO to compare the estimated fair market value of unit in project Seventy at Rs.7,000/- per sq.ft (other than the unit where appellant has charged higher rate) and the amount mentioned ... market rate as per the seized documents also could not be ignored but had to be considered (with suitable adjustment) for ascertaining the fair market value of the properties and the final sale consideration received by the assessee. The Assessing Officer was, therefore, correct in considering the rates as mentioned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SAFAL ENGINEERS AND REALTIES LLP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the appeal\nof the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1730/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Section 143(3)

appellant therefore respectfully prays that:\n\n1. The direction given by the Ld. CIT(A) to the Ld. AO to compare the\nestimated fair market value of unit in project Seventy at Rs.7,000/- per\nsq.ft (other than the unit where appellant has charged higher rate) and\nthe amount mentioned ... market rate as per the seized documents also could not\nbe ignored but had to be considered (with suitable adjustment) for ascertaining\nthe fair market value of the properties and the final sale consideration received\nby the assessee. The Assessing Officer was, therefore, correct in considering\nthe rates as mentioned

SAFAL ENGINEERS AND REALTIES LLP,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the appeal\nof the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1700/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Section 143(3)

SAFAL ENGINEERS AND REALTIES LLP,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the appeal\nof the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1699/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Section 143(3)

appellant therefore respectfully prays that:\n\n1.\nThe direction given by the Ld. CIT(A) to the Ld. AO to compare the\nestimated fair market value of unit in project Seventy at Rs.7,000/- per\nsq.ft (other than the unit where appellant has charged higher rate) and\nthe amount mentioned ... market rate as per the seized documents also could not\nbe ignored but had to be considered (with suitable adjustment) for ascertaining\nthe fair market value of the properties and the final sale consideration received\nby the assessee. The Assessing Officer was, therefore, correct in considering\nthe rates as mentioned

MAHMOOD HUSSAIN SYED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 541/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

under the head ‘income from capital gains’ towards difference between sale consideration as per the registered sale deed and fair market value of the property, as per the provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and addition of Rs. 2,03,87,170/- under Section ... including the addition towards difference in capital account of the proprietor, addition under the head capital gains towards difference between sale consideration and fair market value of the property as on the 4 Mahmood Hussain Syed date of registration under Section 50C of the Act, and also addition under Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BLEND FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the R

ITA 8088/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Account Member) & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari (SR. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40A(2)(b)

Assessing Officer invoked section On this basis, the Assessing Officer invoked section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Instead of determining the fair market value 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Instead of determining the fair market value 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Instead of determining the fair market ... opinion that the expenditure claimed is excessive or unreasonable having opinion that the expenditure claimed is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value for which payment is made. The AO must regard to the fair market value for which payment is made. The AO must regard

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)

adequacy of the consideration. He also rightly observed that the Legislature has used the words 'full value of the consideration' and not 'fair market value of the assets transferred He recorded that the Assessing Officer has not brought on record any material to show that the assessee has received more

RAJMATA KAVITESHWARI DEVI,SATNA vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER , SATNA

ITA 107/JAB/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur12 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 147Section 254Section 264

respond to the notices issued by the Departmental Valuation Officer, particularly when all the requisite documents necessary for valuation of the fair market value was already on record and detailed reply along with documents was filed before the AO in response to the SCN issued on 15.12.2017. 5. The learned

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)

valuation to the valuation officer as provided in section 50C(2) of the Act and without considering other relevant material affecting the fair market value of the property. 8. BECAUSE without prejudice to the grounds hereinfore, the Id. "CIT(A)" ought to have directed the "Assessing Officer" to re-compute

SIX TWENTY REALTY PVT LTD,RAJOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 787/RJT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

fact the registry value in respect\nof sale of flats to customers is made at much higher value than the prescribed valuation\n(Fair Market Value) adopted by State Government for levy of stamp duty. Therefore,\nbooks of account of the assessee company shows correct and complete result

SIX TWENTY REALTY PVT. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 786/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

SIX TWENTY REALTY PVT. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 785/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

fact the registry value in respect of sale of flats to customers is made at much higher value than the prescribed valuation (Fair Market Value) adopted by State Government for levy of stamp duty. Therefore, books of account of the assessee company shows correct and complete result and as such

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SIX TWENTY REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJKOT

ITA 765/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

JAGAT SINGH,KHURJA vs. ITO, WARD 3(2), BULANDSHAHR

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

ITA 7428/DEL/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(14)Section 250Section 50CSection 54F

r.w.s. 16A [5] of Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 by the Office of the Valuation Officer, Meerut shall be considered for determining Fair Market Value (FMV) for calculation of LTCG of the property sold, if at all calculated. The same has been completely ignored by the Ld. AO and CIT(Appeals

Showing 1–20 of 2,353 · Page 1 of 118

...