“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

Zee Fabrics Inc., Mumbai vs. ACIT-18(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1510/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1510/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Ld

Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)(B)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

higher rate of interest and concluded that such expenditure are excessive and unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the goods, services and facilities. The AO disallowed 6% of the rate of interest over and above 12% and added Rs. 20,84,252/- to the total income ... 3112/Mum/2018 dated 26.07.2019 and relied on the same. 4. On the other hand, Ld. DR contended that the interest rate should pertain to fair market value and the assessee’s claim is excessive and unreasonable. 5. We have carefully considered the submission of the rival parties and perused the material

ITO 27 (1)(4), Mumbai vs. Bhaveshwar Vilas Chs Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the learned Assessing

ITA 7156/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am The Income Tax Officer, 27(1)(4), Bhaveshwar Vilas Chs Ltd. Room No.407, 4Th Floor, Plot No.55, Bhaveshwar Vilas, 17Th Road, Chembur, Tower No.6, Vashi Rly St. Vs. Complex, Vashi, Navai Mumbai-400 071 Mumbai-400 703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaab4197L Appellant By : Shri Bharat Kumar, Ar Respondent By : Shri C.T. Mathews, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, DR

Section 143(3)Section 50C

balance sheet of the assessee where the land and buildings were shown at ₹4,31,050/-. The Assessing Officer noted that the fair market value of the property for stamp duty purposes is ₹4,21,71,000/- and therefore, he computed a short term capital gain

Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as directed above

ITA 4675/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Asst. Commissioner Income Asian Paints Ltd. Tax, (Large Taxpayer Unit)-2, 6A Shanti Nagar, Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), World Trade Centre, Cuffee Mumbai-400 055 Vs. Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaaca3622K Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of 6A Shanti Nagar, Income Tax-Ltu Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400 055 World Trade Centre, Cuffee Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Sr Dr Respondent By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02 .2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Am: 01. These Are Cross Appeals Filed By Asian Paints Ltd [Appellant/Assessee] & The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax – Large Taxpayers Unit

For Appellant: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr DRFor Respondent: Shri

Section 14ASection 35

number of equity shares were US$ 28,055,444 and therefore the value per share was US$ 1.45. Accordingly he determined fair market value of 41 lakhs equity shares at ₹ 285,241,100/–.However the assessee has received only Rs. 19,67,18,000 towards buyback, an addition/ adjustment ... issue of shares should be determined. Thus in absence of any methodology prescribed for fixing the buyback price it should be the ‗fair market value‘ as per the valuation methodologies. Ordinarily a valuation report may be obtained from the authorised valuer to compute the same. 064. In the present case

ITO 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Suntech Peripherals P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3502/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No. 3502/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito – 1(3)(2) M/S Suntech Peripherals Pvt. Ltd. 5Th Floor, R. No. 541 बिाम 2-B, Prem Kutir, 177 Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road Babubhai Chinoi Road / Vs. Mubmai-400 020 Marine Drive, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcs-6873-P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jotwani – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang Boman Irani – Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 24/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 18/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai [Cit(A)], Dated 28/02/2017 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) On 30/03/2015. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Read As Under: - 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Share Premium Received On The Ground That It Was A Capital Receipt When In Reality There Is Accretion To Assets Without A Corresponding Increase In Claimable Liability (Shares & Premium Reserve) & Therefore Determining The Nature Of Such Receipt Of Share Premium As Income On It Remaining

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jotwani – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

prior to the issuance of equity shares on premium. This DCF method is one of the approve method of valuation to determine fair market value of the unquoted equity shares of a company. The company had complied with all formalities and had made all necessary disclosure prior to issue

M/S Futuristic Diagnostic Imaging Centre Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(4), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

ITA 259/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri G. Venkatesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mathivanan .M, CIT DR

Section 234Section 51

previous year in which such stock in trade is sold or otherwise transferred and for the purpose of section 48, the fair market value of the asset on the date of such conversion shall be deemed to be full value of consideration received or accruing as a result ... transfer of capital asset. Therefore, fair market value of the asset on the date of conversion as reduced by the cost of acquisition is required to be assessed under the head "capital gain". Further, sales realization of the stock-in-trade over such fair market value is required

ITO 25(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Kirit Raojibhai Patel, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the learned AO is dismissed

ITA 2339/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Income Tax Officer- Kirit Raojibhai Patel 25(2)(5) 5Th Floor Ram Niwas, 34, Room No. 506, C-10, Vallabhnagar, N.S. Road, Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Juhu, Vile Parele(W), Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpp3139J Assessee Represented By : Shri Rashmikant Choksey, Ar Department Represented By : Shri K.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2022

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2Section 45Section 50Section 54Section 54F

assessee has submitted the valuation report dated 13/3/1989 valuing the asset as on 1/4/1986 at ₹ 666,000/– which was used for deriving the fair market value of the asset as on 1/4/1981 by applying the proportionately reverse cost inflation index. Accordingly as on 1/4/1981 the value was worked ... Under:- Sr Particulars Amount No 1 Sale consideration 6,63,03,000 2 Cost of acquisition of the plot 12,99,450 fair market value as on 1/4/1980 one is ₹ 250,003 and 76/– which is indexed for the relevant assessment year 2,50,367*519/100 3 Cost of improvement

ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Luxora Realtors P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1096/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleacit – Central Circle – 2(1) V. M/S. Luxora Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 804, 8Th Floor Soham House, Hari Om Nagar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Opp. Eastern Express Highway Mumbai - 400020 Mulund(E), Mumbai – 400081 Pan: Aabco3197J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishore Dewani Department By : Ms. Shailja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Kishore DewaniFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

submit that the identity, capacity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the ECPL stands properly explained iv. As regards to your query in respect of fair market values of the said shares along with supporting documentary evidence, it may be kindly noted that the market value of the share have been worked

Income Tax Oficer Ward-1, Bidar vs. Sri Rajkumar Agarwal, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3441/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Rajkumar Hanchnal, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 50C(2)

learned authroity’s erred in making the addition of Rs.1,56,60,189/- by stating that the appellant adopted values being the fair market value as on 01.04.1981, which are extraordinarily higher than the assessed values of SRO and further appellant manage to obtain some abnormal valuation for the property ... manipulates with this proviso. The learned authority’s ought to have appreciated SRO value is not fair market value as has been held by Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Smt.Krishna Bajaj (2014) 41 Taxman 445 (Kar.) 6. On facts and circumstances

Shri. Rajkumar Agarwal, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Bidar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3421/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Rajkumar Hanchnal, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 50C(2)

ITO -3(3)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S V.K. Lalaco Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3599/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Income Tax Officer -3(3)(4) V. M/S. V.K. Lalco Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 672, 6Th Floor 1017/18, Dalamal Tower Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 10Th Floor, 211, Nariman Point Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400020 Pan: Aaacv9820A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Satish Modi Department By : Shri S.N. Kabra

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModiFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 56(2)(viib)

assessee is of ₹.4,99,24,500/- to its sister’s concern M/s. Tyabji Estates Pvt. Ltd.,. The assessee calculated the fair market value of the shares by relying on the valuation report submitted by M/s. Dharmesh M. Kansara & Associates, Chartered Accountants. As per the valuation report submitted the fair ... said explanation (a)(ii) of section 56(2)(viib) the assessee, can substantiate to the satisfaction of the assessing officer the fair market value of the shares based on the value, on the date of issue of shares, of its assets, including intangible asset. The assessee in order to substantiate

M/S Value & Budget Housing Corporation Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 1388/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ramasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35D

plant and machinery leased to sister concerns on the ground that the rent charged by the appellant is not at par with the fair market value even though no material was brought on record to substantiate the FMV arrived by the learned assessing officer. 3 ITA No.1370/Bang/2018 & Ors. M/s.Value & Budget

M/S Value & Budget Housing Corporation Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 1387/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ramasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35D

M/S Value & Budget Housing Corporation Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 1370/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ramasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35D

M/S. Fortigo Network Logistics Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2174/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri G.S. Prashanth, A.RFor Respondent: Sri M.K. Biju, D.R

Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

petitioner. This, even after he concedes with the method of valuation namely, NAV Method or the DCF Method to determine the fair market value of shares has to be done/adopted at the Assessee's option. Nevertheless, he does not deal with the change in the method of valuation ... Assessing Officer and that has not been done by him. In fact, he has completely disregarded the DCF Method for arriving at the fair market value. Therefore, the demand in the facts need to be stayed." 12. As per above Para of this judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court

Intelligrape Software Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-12(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9042/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 9042/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Intelligrape Software Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, C/O Sanjiv Sapra & Associates Llp, Ca, Circle-12(2), C-763, New Friends Colony, New Delhi New Delhi-110025 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabci9247F Assessee By : Sh. Sanjiv Sapra, Fca Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjiv Sapra, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR

Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

Income-tax Act on account of alleged excess value of unquoted equity shares as issued by the Appellant at a premium over fair market value as determined by the AO. 2. That the valuation report for valuing unquoted equity shares of the Appellant private company as issued by the Chartered ... Therefore, during the course of assessment proceedings, the AR was asked to justify the premium received over and above the fair market value of the shares with documentary evidence in terms of section 56(viib) of I.T. Act. 6. Before the AO, the ld. AR has filed valuation report dated

Spenta Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ACIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2133/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 43CSection 50C

shops were received from the buyers. In view of these, shortfall in consideration received for shop nos. 408 and 509 vis-avis their fair market value derived from adoption of ready reckoner values is worked out at Rs 4,33,575/- and Rs 3,92,754/- respectively. Thus the total

Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed quashing reopening of assessment and deleting addition on the merits

ITA 7432/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Standard Chartered Bank The Dy. Director Of Income- Crescenzo, Tax(International Taxation)- 7Th Floor, C38-39, 2(1), Vs. G Block Bandra Kurla Complex , 1St Floor, Scindia House, Bandra East N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 038 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aabcs4681D Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Milind Chavan, Dr

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 154Section 2(47)Section 45Section 50Section 50C

property was conveyed by registered deed on 23rd April, 2004, which is falling in Assessment Year 2005- 06, addition between fair market value of property and actual consideration is rightly added by ld AO. Therefore, LD DRP directed that LD Assessing Officer is correct in making an addition of difference ... assessee at ₹919,16,65,573/- therein, the only addition was of ₹9,49,08,709/- , being difference in actual sales consideration and Fair market value as per provision of section 50 C of the Act was made. The assessee is aggrieved with this order. 8. The learned Authorized Representative

M/S Kimaya Impex Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 10 (1)(4), Mumbai

Accordingly, the order passed by the CIT(A) sustaining the said disallowance is set-aside. The Ground of appeal No. 2 is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 6282/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () M/S Kimaya Impex Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer -10(1)(4) 4106 Rustomjee Eaze Zone, Vs. Mumbai 2Nd Floor, Laxmi Singh Complex Off Link Road, Malad West, Mumbai 400 064 Pan No. Aaccn4178R (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Ms. Neha Paranjpe, A.R Revenue By : Shri Pramod Nikalje, D.R Date Of Hearing : 24/11/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/01/2022

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Paranjpe, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Nikalje, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 69C

then, if the A.O 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 or the benefit derived ... expenditure claimed by the assessee qua the related parties is found by the A.O to be excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the goods, service or facilities, it is only there that the disallowance of that part of the expenditure as is considered

ACIT, Jammu vs. Sh Vikramaditya Singh, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 269/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl

Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

shares. It was submitted that assessee was holding 10,000 equity shares of M/s. Jyoti Pvt. Ltd., much before 01.04.1981. Therefore, the fair market value of these shares is relevant for the purpose of capital gain on shares. It was submitted that the fair market value of the shares ... determine the cost of acquisition cannot be curtailed. 2.5.1 It was submitted that it is at the option of the assessee to take fair market value as on 01.04.1981 or cost of acquisition. In the present case, the assessee has opted for fair market value

ACIT, Cir-II, Jammu vs. Smt. Yashorajya Laxmi, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 268/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl

Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148