← All Phrases

“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
88
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
69
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
66
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
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.

Judgments citing fair market value

ITO 30 (1) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Blossom Developers, Mumbai

In the result, the both appeals filed by the assessee and revenue are dismissed

ITA 62/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleito 30(1)(1) Vs. M/S Blossom Room No. 436, 4Th Floor Developers Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc Survey No. 273, Village G Block, Bandra(East) Dindoshi, Pathanwadi Mumbai – 400051. Malad (E), Mumbai – 400097. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfb6147Q Appellant .. Respondent M/S Blossom Vs. Ito 30(1)(1) Developers Room No. 436, 4Th Survey No. 273, Village Floor Dindoshi, Pathanwadi Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc Malad (E), G Block, Bandra Mumbai – 400097. Mumbai – 400 051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfb6147Q Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Shyam C. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, SR. AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

opinion that any expenditure claimed towards payment made to a related person is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the goods, services or facilities for which the payment is made or the legitimate needs of the business or the benefit derived from such business ... Assessing Officer must come to a conclusion that the payment made by the assessee is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the goods, services, facilities or the legitimate needs of the benefit derived by the assessee from the business. The aforesaid conclusion

Copco Engineering P. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Range 1, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2399/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1299 & 2399/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Copco Engineering P. Ltd., The Acit / Acit(Osd), No.398, (Old No.766), Vs. Corporate Circle 1(2) / Poonamallee High Road, Corporate Range 1, Chennai– 600 010. Chennai. Pan: Aaacc 2483J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan,Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh:

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan,Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(a)

company by invoking the provisions of section 40A(2)(a) of the Act, without assigning proper reasons or justification and not ascertaining independently fair market value of the land. For this, assessee has raised various grounds in both the years which are argumentative and exhaustive and hence, need ... assessee for the value of land is excess to the extent of Rs.21.82 lakhs. Accordingly, the AO brought the excess amount over the fair market value of the land to tax by invoking the provisions of section 40A(2)(a) of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before

M/S Copco Engineering P Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 1 (2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1299/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1299 & 2399/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Copco Engineering P. Ltd., The Acit / Acit(Osd), No.398, (Old No.766), Vs. Corporate Circle 1(2) / Poonamallee High Road, Corporate Range 1, Chennai– 600 010. Chennai. Pan: Aaacc 2483J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan,Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh:

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan,Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(a)

company by invoking the provisions of section 40A(2)(a) of the Act, without assigning proper reasons or justification and not ascertaining independently fair market value of the land. For this, assessee has raised various grounds in both the years which are argumentative and exhaustive and hence, need ... assessee for the value of land is excess to the extent of Rs.21.82 lakhs. Accordingly, the AO brought the excess amount over the fair market value of the land to tax by invoking the provisions of section 40A(2)(a) of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before

Asst CIT Cir. 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Dpn Reality Deals Pvt Ltd., Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 1347/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Vp आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1347/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17) Acit, Circle-15(1)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Dpn Reality Deals Room No. 483A, 4Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Unit No. 4, Building No. 400020. 2, Sector-1, Millenium Business Park Mahape, Navi Mumbai-400710. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacy6576C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Saurabh Bhat Revenue By: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -24, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Dated 18.11.2019 For Ay. 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Revenue Reads As Under: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Appeal & Deleting The Additions Of Rs.19,46,21,075/- Made U/S 56(2)(Viib) Of The Act. 2. The Appellant Prays That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) On The Above Ground Be Set Aside & That Of The Ao Be Restored.”

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh BhatFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (DR)
Section 56(2)(viib)

Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act r.w. Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 (hereinafter “the Rules”) and accordingly the fair market value of the share was calculated at Rs.525/- on the basis of discounted cash Flow Method (DCF Method). The AO show-caused the assessee vide notice ... start-up company having lot of projects in hand had adopted DCF method to value its shares. Under the DCF Method, the fair market value of the share is required to be determined either by the Merchant Banker or by the Chartered Accountant. The valuation of shares based