“fair market value”

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

The decision most relied on for fair market value is Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT (372 ITR 83), cited in 159 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on fair market value

Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT

372 ITR 83 · 2015 · High Court

159

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer is duty-bound to refer the valuation of property to the Departmental Valuation Officer under Section 50C(2) when an assessee disputes the stamp duty valuation or if there is a discrepancy between the actual sale consideration and the guideline value. This reference is mandatory, even if not explicitly requested by the assessee, to ensure a realistic fair market value and avoid injustice.

CIT v. ITC Ltd.

236 Taxmann 612 · 2016 · High Court

108

citing judgments

When computing deduction under Section 80IA, specifically for inter-unit transfer of power, the benefit cannot be claimed based on rates chargeable by distribution licensees to consumers. The deduction must be computed based on the rate fixed by the Tariff Regulation Commission for sale by electricity generating companies.

PCIT v. Chain House International (P) Ltd.

98 Taxmann.com 47 · 2018 · High Court

104

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot arbitrarily reject a share valuation report prepared by an expert using recognized methods like NAV or DCF for the purpose of Section 56(2)(viib) without providing valid reasons to demonstrate its perversity or unreasonableness.

CIT v. Puja Prints

360 ITR 697 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

The amendment to Section 55A(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which replaced "is less than" with "is at variance" as the condition for referring a valuation to a Departmental Valuation Officer, does not have retrospective effect. Consequently, for periods before July 1, 2012, a DVO reference is invalid if the declared value is not "less than" the fair market value.

Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd. v. PCIT

164 DTR 257 · 2018 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessee has the option to choose either the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method or the Net Asset Value (NAV) method for share valuation under Section 56(2)(viib) read with Rule 11UA. The Assessing Officer cannot substitute the chosen method or value without identifying a specific error in the assessee's valuation.

Hiaben Jayantilal Shah v. ITO

310 ITR 31 · 2009 · High Court

citing judgments

When an assessee presents a registered valuer's report for an asset, the Assessing Officer, if forming an opinion that the value claimed is less than the fair market value, must refer the valuation to the Valuation Officer under Section 55A(a). The AO cannot unilaterally reject the registered valuer's report or resort to Section 55A(b) in such a scenario.

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.

Judgments citing fair market value

Raghvendra Singh, Howrah vs. Income Tax Officer, Bamboo Villa, Calcutta

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

ITA 1763/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1763/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Raghvendra Singh,……………….………...……Appellant 13, Burnt Salt Gola Lane, Howrah-711101, West Bengal [Pan:Bjhps6740J] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-62(1), Kolkata, Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700014 Appearances By: Shri Vidyut Sethi, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 13, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 09, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 56(2)(x)

main road. The assessee does not agree with the value adopted by the stamp duty authority as it exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer as the said value is totally unfair and inconsistent with the value prevailing in the concerned locality. Assessee ... submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the ld. Assessing Officer referred the matter to the DVO to ascertain the fair market value of the property but before ascertaining the fair market value, the ld. Assessing Officer completed the assessment. Therefore, he pleaded to set aside the order

Lakshmi Sadho Commercial Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarmalakshmi Sadho Commercial Pvt. Vs Ito, Ward-10(2), Kolkata Ltd. 134, Ashutosh Mukherjee Road, Kol-25. Pan No. : Aabcl6120C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Rajkumar Agarwal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kr. Patil, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm : This Appeal By The Assessee Arises Against The Order Dated 22.01.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Fact Of The Case Are That During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Noticed That The Assessee Had Shown A Property Valued At ₹1,35,95,500, Whereas The Fair Market Value Was Determined At ₹1,47,77,500 For The Purpose Of Stamp Duty. In The Return Of Income, The Assessee Had Declared The Nature Of Business As Trading Under Code 204. Based On This Declaration, The Assessing Officer Held That The Assessee Was Required To Get Its Accounts Audited As Per Section 44Ab Of The Act. The Assessing Officer Issued Notice Under Section 274 R.W.S.

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kr. Patil, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 271BSection 273BSection 274Section 44A

course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee had shown a property valued at ₹1,35,95,500, whereas the fair market value was determined at ₹1,47,77,500 for the purpose of stamp duty. In the return of income, the assessee had declared the nature

Mannequin Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 586/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No. 586/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Mannequin Pharmaceuticals Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Bhubaneswar Private Limited B-26 & 26(1), Chandaka Industrial Estate 751024 Pan No. : Aajcm 6157 G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi Dated 28.08.2025 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Only Issue In The Assessee’S Appeal Was In Respect Of The Validation Of The Share Market Value Of Rs.4,900/- Equity Shares. It Was Submission That The Assesse Had Allowed The Discounted Cash Flow Method At Provided In Rule 11 Ua Of The Act Of The Income Tax Rules. 3. It Was Submission That The Ld.Cit(A) Has Held That The Fair Market Value Of The Unquoted Equity Shares Was To Be Determined By Merchant Banker. It Was Submission That Consequently As The Dcf Method Valuation

For Appellant: Shri P.K Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

Section 56Section 56(2)

rule 11 UA of the Act of the Income Tax Rules. 3. It was submission that the Ld.CIT(A) has held that the fair market value of the unquoted equity shares was to be determined by merchant banker. It was submission that consequently as the DCF Method valuation ... addition of Rs.84,80,920/- made by the AO. It was submission that the term Merchant Banker for the purpose of determining that fair market value by applying the discounted free cash flow method was made mandatory into the rules 11UA w.e.f 24/05/2018 and the impugned assessment year

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Shri Jaya Pradeep, Chennai

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

ITA 960/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

higher than the registered value. The AO has merely placed reliance on data available on certain real estate websites to suggest that the fair market value was higher than the declared consideration. It was contended that, had the market value been of such magnitude, the guideline value fixed ... premises. 30. The Ld.CIT(A) also noted that the AO failed to refer the matter to the Valuation Cell for determination of the fair market value of the property. In the absence of such exercise, the valuation adopted at Rs.28,38,00,000/- is merely conjectural. In view

Asirvad Micro Finance Limited, Anna Salai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1140/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1140/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Asirvad Micro Finance Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of No.9, 9Th Floor, Club House Road, Income Tax, Annasalai, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai-600 002 Chennai. [Pan: Aagca5275J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.P.R.Prasanna Varma, Fca & Mr.Arjun Rajagopalan, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.P.R.Prasanna Varma, FCA &For Respondent: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 2(18)Section 2(71)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 8

date of the agreement for the transfer of such immovable property;(c)any property, other than immovable property,—(i)without consideration, the aggregate fair market value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the whole of the aggregate fair market value of such property;(ii)for a consideration which is less ... than the aggregate fair market value of the property by an amount exceeding fifty thousand rupees, the aggregate fair market value of such property as exceeds such consideration :Provided that where the stamp duty value of immovable property as referred to in sub-clause (b) is disputed by the assessee

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kct Papers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3380/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit, Circle 5 (1) Vs. M/S. Kct Papers Limited, New Delhi. Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aacck4937D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate Shri Deepesh Jain, Advocate Shri Tavish Verma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date Of Order : 05.12.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Viii, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 21.03.2014For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Assessee Company Belongs To The Thapar Group Established By Late Lala Karam Chand Thapar. There Was A Family Settlement Between The Various Constituents Of The Karam Chand Thapar Family As A Result Of Which Revenue-Organization/Restructuring Of The Group Dated 27Th April, 2001. The Re April, 2001. The Re-Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand T K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand Thapar Family Is Explained As Hapar Family Is Explained As Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart: Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart:

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR

Section 391

previous owner as indexed with reference to the period of holding in the hands of previous owner and after taking into account the Fair Market Value of the shares as on 1.04.1981 in respect of the shares acquired on or before the said date. The assessee has accordingly adopted ... shares were first acquired by the previous owner. Thus, he has not allowed the benefit of indexation to the and also not considered fair market value of shares as on 1.4.1981 in case of shares acquired by previous owners, prior to the said date. The A.O. had adopted the value

Baldev Singh Bhadoriya, Gwalior vs. ITO-3(2), Gwalior

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

ITA 37/AGR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Smt Kiran Lata Bhadoria, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- L/H Of Late Shri Baldev 3(2), Singh Bhadoria, Gwalior Mig-20, Darpan Colony, 474005, Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ahopb3071D Assessee By : Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT(DR)

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

paper book. d) Copy of valuation report dated 7-02-2025 of a Registered Valuer which showed that the fair market value of the said land was lower than the stamp duty value. This is enclosed in pages 168 to 172 of the paper book. e) Copy of No Objection

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru vs. Flipkart India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1395/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 37

record that there was an actual issue of shares of the parent company by the assessee to its employees. The difference, between the fair market value of the shares of the parent company on the date of issue of shares and the price at which those shares were issued ... employees was paid by the employee to the Assessee who in turn paid it to the parent company. The difference between the fair market value of the shares of the price at which shares were issued to the employees was met by the Assessee. This factual position is not disputed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru vs. Flipkart India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1394/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 37

ACIT, Circle - 3 3 1, Mumbai vs. Jamnagar Utilities and Power Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 5312/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nimesh Vora/For Respondent: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 135Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 43ASection 80G

profit and loss (FVTPL) as prescribed in Ind AS-19 for Financial instrument. Accordingly, the at the yearend RPSs were re-valued at fair market value and resultant loss was debited to the profit and loss account under the head 'other expenses. The assessee relied on CBDT Circular No. 24/2017

ACIT, Circle - 3 3 1, Mumbai vs. Jamnagar Utilities and Power Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 5310/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Respondent: Mr. Nimesh Vora/

Section 115JSection 135Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 43ASection 80G

DCIT Central Circle 7 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Soyumm Marketing Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue, being ITA no

ITA 4306/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1) Room No.653, Aaykar Bhawan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020 V/S Spectra Realities Private Limited, 9, Floor-I, Plot – 51, Kapadia Chamber, Devji Ratansi Marg, ……………… Respondent Chinchbunder, Mumbai – 400009 Pan: Aalcs7233B Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1) Room No.653, Aaykar Bhawan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr.AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

cumulative redeemable preference shares at the face value of Rs. 100 and premium of Rs. 220. For the purpose of determining the fair market value of such shares as per section 56(2)(viia), Rule 11UA of Income Tax rules is applicable. As per clause (c), the fair market value ... assessment order the A.O. after discussing various decisions of Hon'ble ITAT, concluded that- 1. For the purpose of determining the fair market value of non-cumulative redeemable preference shares to compute the excessive premium rule 11UA of the I.T Rule would be applicable. 2. There is no specific formula

DCIT Central Circle 7 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Spectra Realties Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue, being ITA no

ITA 4304/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr.AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

Proton Positive Health Care India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle -16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 812/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.812/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Proton Positive Health Vs. Assistant Commissioner Care India Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle-16(2), Pan: Aafcp6862K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 03/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (For Short, “Cit(A)”) Dated 07/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”) Dated 28/06/2019 For Ay 2016-17. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Passed By The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 143(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)

holistically, there is no benefit derived by the assessee by issue of shares at certain premium notwithstanding that the share premium exceeds a fair market value in a given case. Instinctively, it is a transaction between the self, if so to say. The true purport of Section 56(2)(viib ... viib) is to prevent unlawful gains by issuing company in the garb of capital receipts. In the instant case, not only that the fair market value is supported by independent valuer report, the allotment has been made to the existing shareholder holding 100% equity and therefore, there is no change

Intermesh Shopping Network Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 12(3), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1579/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarintermesh Shopping Network Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, Lower Ground Unit No. 1-06, Ward-12(3), Boomerang, Chandivali Farmroad, Delhi Chandivali, Mumbai-400072 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaci7990L

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Dhawan, Adv (VC)For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

Value (NAV) method which is also one of the recognized method under Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules and arrived at the fair market value of Rs 200 per share. Accordingly, by using NAV method, the Learned AO proceeded to add the differential ... minus 57,13,800) as consideration received over and above the fair market value under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act and completed the assessment. This action of the Learned AO was upheld by the Learned NFAC. 7. It is not in dispute that the assessee had valued

Simon Pavan Kumar Moses, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Warang Al

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

ITA 557/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

with the Department, where the A.O. noticed that, the assessee has sold the property for a consideration of Rs.83,60,000/- whereas the Fair Market Value as per SRO was Rs.1,42,35,000/-. The A.O., after taking note of relevant facts, has assessed the difference between sale consideration ... Fair Market Value as per Section 50C of the Act, and made addition of Rs.1,80,991/- being the 1/60th share of the assessee. The assessee could not appear and explain his case with relevant evidences. Since the assessee could not explain his case, in our considered view, there

Pusa Nanda Kumar, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle3-(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 154/HYD/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.154/Hyd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2007-2008) Sri Pusa Nanda Kumar, The Dcit, Hyderabad - 500001. Central Circle-3(1), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 004. Pan Acupp6100E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca P Murali Mohan Rao राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 153ASection 50CSection 68

around 500 days. He has further contended that the assessee has objected to the adoption of the deemed full value consideration as the fair market value of the land in question was very less due to defective title of the original land owners who have executed the sale deed ... assessee has not been able to substantiate how the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority can be said to exceed the fair market value of the property, the stamp authority value is deemed to be the full value of consideration received as a result of such transfer

Eswaramoorthy Venkatachalam, Tirupur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Tirupur

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

ITA 2472/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri H.Yeshwanth Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. M. Subashri, Addl. CIT (virtual)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270A

Nallur for Rs. 2,45,00,000/- and Perumal Kovil for Rs. 22,00,000/-. The assessee computed capital gains by adopting the Fair Market Value (FMV) as on 01.04.1981 at Eewaramoorthy Venkatachalam m2-: Rs. 7,25,000/- for the Nallur land and Rs. 1,75,000/- for the Perumal

Shri K.G Subbarama Setty, Bangalore vs. ACIT 5(2)(1) Bangalore, C R Building

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 965/BANG/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R

Section 127Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

distributed on dissolution or otherwise, the firm needs to pay capital gain tax. For the purpose of paying capital gain tax, the fair market value of the assets on the date of such distribution is deemed to be the full value of the consideration

K A Sujit Chandan, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Bengaluru.-5(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 964/BANG/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R

Section 127Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250