“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

Nipin Steels Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the impugned addition is quashed

ITA 3923/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 Nipin Steels Private Ltd., Vs Ito, Y-4-A-C, Loha Mandi, Ward 18(3), Naraina Industrial Estate, Delhi Delhi – 110 028. Pan:Aaccm2046H (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Ashwini Kumar & Shri Ankur Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ashwini Kumar &For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Appellant Company had, with the help of some perceived paper/shell companies, obtained shares in the said companies at a value lesser than the fair market value of such shares. 2.2 Ld. Counsel submitted that a review of the reasons for issuing the impugned notice u/s 147/148

Kishori Pankaj Agarwal, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer, Vadodara, Gujarat

ITA 623/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. M. Jagatsheth, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT. DR

Section 10(38)Section 250Section 68

raising doubt on the abnormal increase of the share price of Kappac Pharma Ltd. which in no way could termed as a fair market value looking to the financial position, gross sales and income shown by the listed company KPL and based on all these observations concluded that the alleged ... other hand all the relevant documents to prove the purchase and sale were before the Ld. A.O. Purchases were at the fair market value at Rs.12/-. Sales have been effected through registered broker after payment of security transaction tax and sold at the prices appearing at the recognized stock exchange

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Avendus Capital Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6128/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22 Dcit-14(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Avendus Capital Private Limited Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, 901, 9Th Floor Platina, Plot No. Aayakar Bhavan, M.L. Road, C-59, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400020 Bandra East, Mumbai 400051 Pan: (Aabcc2404Q) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Ashish Mehta & Shri Pulkit Pandey, Advocates Respondent By : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) 48, Mumbai Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1078825129(1) Dated 23.07.2025 Passed Against Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 28.12.2023 For Ay 2021-22. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: “1. Whether, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Citia) Failed To Appreciate That The Expenditure Incurred On The Esop Scheme Is A Capital Expenditure & Not A Revenue Expenditure

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Mehta and Shri Pulkit Pandey, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 371

case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the substance over form of the transaction, whereas the difference between the fair market value and the exercise price of the shares is an opportunity cost to the company, but it does not represent a real, out-of-pocket

Priyavrat Sharma, Agra vs. ITO Ward 1(1)(2), Agra

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 355/AGR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 50C

Further stating that the plots are situated in malinbasti at a distance of 1km from main road, in Nagar Nigam area, Agra, whose ‘fair market value’ is far below the circle rate. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act, and an adjustment

Sigma Paradise, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ward 2(2)(1), Ghaziabad

The appeal is allowed

ITA 823/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sigma Paradise, Vs Dcit, Km-78, Kavi Nagar, Ward 2(2)(1), Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh – 201 002. Pan:Aazfs9643L (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca; & Shri Gagan R. Khandelwal & Shri Jaind Kumar Jaiswal, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CA; &For Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 4Section 50CSection 6

that the registration value fixed by the stamp valuation authority under the Stamp Act is excessive and does not correspond with the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer and that a reference be made for fresh valuation. In the instant case, no such recourse

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Siyaram Silk Mills Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 2941/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Girish Agrawalassistant Commissioner Of Vs. Siyaram Silk Mills Income Tax Limited Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, B5, Trade World, Aaykar Bhavan, M K Road, Kamala City, Senapati Churchgate, Bapat Margf, Lower Mumbai- 400020 Parel West, Mumbai- 400013 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs6995D (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)

account of goodwill written off. It was further submitted that goodwill got created of Rs. 16,07,99,337/- in the books at Fair Market Value as per High Court Order on amalgamation (AS 14). Thesaid goodwill has to be amortized in the books over the period of 5 years

Poonam Dhananjay Sandu, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 2050/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Girish Agrawal, ()

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 270A(3)Section 270A(9)Section 54

Income- tax Act, 1961. The Appellant, in accordance with Section 55(2)(b)(ii), has opted to adopt the Fair Market Value (FMV) as on 01.04.2001 as the cost of acquisition, since the property became the asset of the previous owner prior to 01.04.2001. In support of this, a Registered

Kayum Razak Dhanani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 634/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 56(2)(vii)

transfer was ₹ 90 and he agrees that the income has not been disclosed on the said being the difference between the fair market value and consideration paid. He also agreed that on allotment of 22,52,124 shares the income from other sources in the hands of the assessee

DCIT, Circle 3(1)(1), Bengaluru, Bmtc Building, Koramangala vs. Gtr Aluminium Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 165/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri Monish Sowkhar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

wherein the AO held that the value at which the shares were issued by the assessee was highly inflated and the Fair Market Value as per 11UA worked out as per Net Asset Value (NAV) method amounted to Rs. 20.88/- as opposed to value at which the shares were issued ... facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record on the above matter. It is seen that AO has applied Fair market value (FMV) of share premium value as per section 56(2)(viib) r.w. rule 11UA of Income Tax Rules as per NAV. The appellant has calculated

Rajesh Velji Rathod, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed in the said terms

ITA 4620/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Rajesh Velji Rathod, Ito Ward – 3(2), Datta Plus Computer, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Mahavir Shopping Centre, Vs. Murbad Road, Kalyan Kalyan (West) Maharashtra – 421 301 Maharashtra -421 301 Pan: Adkpr2430A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Ajay R Singh, Ld. A.R Revenue By : Shri Nakul Agrawal, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.06.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Addl/Jcit(A) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Relevant For Adjudication Of The Instant Appeal Are That In The Instant Case, One Land/Property Was Sold Jointly By Various Sellers Including Assessee Herein Vide Sale Deed Dated 26.04.2010 On A Total Consideration Of Rs.2,19,00,000/- In Favour Of M/S. Priyanka Home Realties Pvt. Ltd., Whereas Market Value Of The Property Was Rs.2,79,68,500/- As Per Stamp Duty Valuation Authority. Though The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income, However, According To The Assessing Officer (Ao) Did Not Disclose This Transaction In The Itr & Therefore The Ao Asked The Assessee To Explain “As To Why The Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) From Sale Of Land Has Not Been Offered To Tax”.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R Singh, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nakul Agrawal, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 54F

LTCG. The Assessee before the AO also submitted a working sheet of capital gain at Rs. ‘NIL’ on the basis of fair market value as on 01.04.1981 as adopted at Rs.3,30,175/- on the basis of valuation report furnished by the Assessee. 4. The AO though considered the aforesaid ... claim of the Assessee, however, not being satisfied with the same did not accept the valuation report filed by the Assessee, wherein the fair market value was determined at Rs.25/- per sq. mtr. and adopted the market value at Rs.10 as on 01.04.1981 and determined the Assessee’s share value

Gautam Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle 30 New Delhi, New Delhi

ITA 2383/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2382/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2020-21 बनाम Parveen Gupta Acit, H 240, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, Vs. Central Circle 30, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aaopg3625N अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2383/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2020-21 बनाम Gautam Gupta Dcit, H.No.97, 1St Floor, G Block, Vs. Central Circle 30, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Ajjpg3284A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 153DSection 234BSection 250Section 270ASection 69

addition of Rs.8,49,500/- made by the Lei. AO being difference between the value of property shown in the safe deed and fair market value determined by the District Valuation Officer Delhi (“DVO”) on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 3. That on the facts ... Rs.8,49,500/- u/s 69 of the Act on account of difference between the value of property shown in the sale deed and fair market value as determined by the DVO as narrated in the assessment order at pages 3 & 4. As stated in the assessment order the details

Parveen Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 30, New Delhi

ITA 2382/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Section 153DSection 234BSection 250Section 270ASection 69

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Global Agro Corp, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4544/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Dcit Vs Global Agro Corp, Room No.1704, Plot No.07,1St Floor, E-2 Block, Central Market West Civic Centre, Avenue Road, New Delhi-110002. West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026. Pan-Aakfg2650A Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Nitin Gulati, Ca Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of 21.11.2025 Pronouncement Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 19.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), [“Ld.Cit(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-15/10990/2019-20 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act,1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Partnership Firm, Engaged In Export Of Rice & E-Filed Its Return Of Income On 28.09.2017 Declaring Income At Inr 66,28,650/-. The Case Was Selected Through Cass & After Considering The Submissions Made By The Assessee From Time To Time, Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Vide Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2019 Wherein Following Additions Were Made:

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

invoked when the AO is of the opinion that such expenditure 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 profession of the assessee". In the present case ... ground that the payment is excessive or unreasonable but there is no finding by the A.O. as to what according to him is fair market value of the services in question. On a similar issue, the ITAT Delhi in the case of Minda Acoustic Ltd held as under:- A disallowance

Rupal Devang Naik, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward-4, Navsari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical

ITA 1058/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Buayananda Prusethaie Vardiet F./Ita No.1058/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 48Section 50C

made an error in invoking section 50C of the Act without referring the matter to the Department's Valuation Officer to determine the fair market value of the property sold. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Assessing Officer ... reply was received from the assessee. The Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) invoked the provision of section 50C which stipulates that the fair market value (FMV) as valued by the stamp valuation authority (SVA) should be taken for the purpose of section 48 of the Act. Accordingly, sale consideration

Ram Niwas Modi Charitable Society, Jaipur vs. CIT-Exemption, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are disposed off

ITA 118/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, Ld. JCIT

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

this sub-section,and the Assessing Officer is of the opinion that such expenditure is excessiveor unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the goods, servicesor facilities for which the payment is made or the legitimate needs of thebusiness or profession of the assessee or the benefit derived

M/S Estin Tie Up Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 32/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 50C(1)Section 55A

original company in 1910 (vide section 0 (vide section 49(1)(e) read with se 47 (vib) and then by taking the fair market value as on 1.4.1981 and then indexed cost of acquisition. (vie sec 49(iii) and sec explanation (iii) to sec 48.” 11. Thus, the following issues ... hands of the original company in 1910 as per section 49(1)(e) r.w.s. 47(vib) and then by taking the fair market value as on 01.04.1981 and the indexed cost of acquisition vide section 49(iii) and explanation (iii) to section 48. 12. The note of submission filed

A.C.I.T., Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Estin Tie Up Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 141/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 50C(1)Section 55A

Kanha Villa LLP, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 29(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 700/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

THAT the Learned CIT (Appeals) as also the Learned Assessment Unit failed to appreciate the difference between the meaning of the terms "fair market value" and "stamp duty value", as the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act only mandates comparison of "stamp duty value" and "consideration

Nitabahen Dineshbhai Bharwad, Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad -3, Ahmedabad

ITA 1009/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54B

total income of Rs.4,53,940/-. Subsequently, the case record was called for examination by the Ld. PCIT. He found that the fair market value of the property as on 01.04.2001 was wrongly worked out by applying rate of Rs.526/- per sq. mtr. He found that the jantri rate ... revenue. Accordingly, he passed the impugned order setting aside the assessment order with direction to pass fresh order after correctly ascertaining the fair market value (FMV) of the property as on 01.04.2001. Nitabahen Dineshbhai Bharwad vs DCIT Page 3 of 10 3. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. PCIT

Vijay Shambhulal Jobanputra, Mumbai vs. ACIT -17(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5792/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Respondent: Mr. K. Shivram a/w Shashi Bekal

assessee furnished a valuation report of a cost of acquisition, the assessee furnished a valuation report of a registered valuer estimating the fair market value of the property at registered valuer estimating the fair market value of the property at registered valuer estimating the fair market value of the property ... statutory powers, referred the matter to the District Valuation statutory powers, referred the matter to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) for determination of fair market value. As the period Officer (DVO) for determination of fair market value. As the period Officer (DVO) for determination of fair market value