“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

Amrinder Singh Khubber, Ambala vs. ITO, W-5, Ambala

ITA 1043/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ न्यायपीठ “ए”, चण्डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL

Anjani Agarwal, Kolkata vs. PCIT (Central) Kolkata - 2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 403/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Pcit (Central) Kolkata-2, Anjani Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), 1D, Ashoka, 14, Ashoka Road, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, Alipore H.O. Vs. 110, Shantipally, Kolkata- Kolkata-700027, West Bengal 700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aehpa0038H Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(x)

submitted that the ld. PCIT has wrongly taken the total assets of the assessee company at ₹12,17,80,199/- for calculation of fair market value of the shares which was incorrect as he had taken the total assets from the consolidated balance sheet of the said company by considering ... assets of M/s Ankit Polyfabs Pvt. Ltd. was ₹4,75,03,712/- and total subscribed share were 4,97,500 and thus, the fair market value of each shares were worked out at ₹95.48. Whereas, the shares were allotted to the assessee at a price of 95.53 which was more

M/S. Ambattur Developers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-1(1), Chennai

ITA 2601/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2601/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Ambattur Developers Private Limited, (Amalgamated With Ambattur Hotels Private Limited) No. 86/E2, Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai - 600 058. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaeca-7490-D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Corporate Ward- 1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : Shri. Bipin, C.N., Cit सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025 : 11.11.2025 आदेश /Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Nfac, Delhi, (In Short Ld.Cit(A)) For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Vide Order Dated 12.08.2024. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: :-2-:

For Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

respect of shares allotted at a premium of 1,767/- per share. 3) The CIT(A) / NFAC erred in estimating the Fair market value of shares at 837.24 per shares instead of Rs.1,777/- as submitted by the Appellant. 4) The CIT(A) /NFAC should have appreciated that, even under ... applicability of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act and the valuation of a running hotel with all its facilities for determining the fair market value of shares u/s.56(2)(viib) of the Act. It is imperative to understand to whom the shares are issued, the nature of shares

DCIT, Circle 4(2), New Delhi vs. Blue Jay Finlease Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4416/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Blue Jay Finlease Pvt. Ltd, Dcit, Circle-4(2), 26, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi Delhi-110001 Pan: Aaacb5215H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rajesh Bansal, Ca Department By Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr

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

raised against addition amounting to Rs.5,84,410 under section 56(2)(viib) on account of issue of shares at an amount exceeding Fair market value (FMV) to Residents. On perusal of records, it was found that the assessee company has issued 19243 shares @ Rs.1610.80 in June, 2017 to various ... assessee company had also submitted the valuation report dated 21.03.2017 from M/s P. K. Arora & Co., Chartered Accountants, in this report the fair market value of each share was calculated at Rs.1580.43. The assessing officer held that the company issued shares to various parties on the value more than

Anju Meel, Jaipur vs. I.T.O. Ward 3(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 741/JPR/2025[A.Y. 2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. G. M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Chaudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292B

appellant carefully. I find from the assessment that the appellant had requested the AO to refer the matter to DVO for valuation of fair market value since the sale consideration was less than the market value adopted by the stamp duty authorities. The AO had made the reference ... find that as per the provisions section 142A(1) the AO may make reference to valuation officer to estimate the value including fair market value. As per the provisions of section 142A(6), the DVO is bound to submit the report within 6 months from the end of month

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Manu Gupta, Dhuri

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 202/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.201/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit Shri Rohit Gupta बनाम/ Central Circle-1 C/O Gupta Textile Trading Co. Vs. Ludhiana Old Anaj Mandi, Dhuri, Punjab-148024 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acapg-4615-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.202/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit Shri Manu Gupta बनाम/ Central Circle-1 C/O Gupta Textile Trading Co. Vs. Ludhiana Old Anaj Mandi, Dhuri, Punjab-148024 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acapg-4616-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) -Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Facts In Captioned Twin Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23 Are Admittedly Identical. First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No. 201/Chandi/2025 Which Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) -Ld. DR (Virtual)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69B

measuring 144.44 Square Yards in the said project for Rs.22 Lacs from HBPL. In assessment proceedings of HBPL, it was noted that the fair market value of the residential plots / SCOs as sold by HBPL was much higher than the registered value of the said properties. By referring to assessment ... find favor with Ld. AO. Going by the search findings and in the light of statements recorded therein, Ld. AO computed fair market value of the SCO at Rs.99.27 Lacs as against its registered value of Rs.22 Lacs and added the differential of Rs.77.27 Lacs as unexplained investment

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Rohit Gupta, Dhuri

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 201/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) -Ld. DR (Virtual)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69B

Ecoenergy Insights Ltd ( Formerly Known As Chubb Alba Control Systems P.Ltd), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2321/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaecoenergy Insights Ltd., Vs. Dcit, (Formerly Known As Chubb Alba Control Circle 4 (2), Systems P. Ltd.), New Delhi. Ground Floor, 18, Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi – 110 002. (Pan :Aaaca0031C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri Parth, Advocate Shri Pratik Rath, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Order : 10.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 25.07.2022Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 147 Read With Section 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Ay 2018-19 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 92C

Court in matters relating to the commercial prudence of an assessee relating to valuation of an asset. The law requires determination of the fair market value as per prescribed methodology……… Since the performance did not match the projections, the Revenue sought to challenge the valuation, on that footing. This approach ... Court in matters relating to the commercial prudence of an assessee relating to valuation of an asset. The law requires determination of the fair market value as per prescribed methodology... ... .... Since the performance did 28 not match the projections, the revenue sought to challenge the valuation, on that footing. This

Prem Lata Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle, Karnal

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

ITA 1422/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Prem Lata Gupta, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of C-5/2A, Opp Cc Colony, Income Tax, Rana Pratap Bagh, North Delhi Central Circle Pin: 1100 07 Karnal. Pan: Aadpl3023F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv., Shri Pawan GargFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250(6)

under: “4. After taking into consideration the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that in the valuation report the fair market value of the property have been taken at Rs.2,70,000/- per sq. yards and which the ld. AO had alleged 4 ITA No.2349/Del/2023 was ‘without ... rationale and documentary evidences’ and accordingly, the circle rate was considered to be reflecting the fair market value of the property. The ld. 6 DRP observed that ideally, if the AO does not accept the valuation report of a registered valuer provided by the assessee, he should have referred

Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4) Now Ward- 1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 159/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

statutorily obliged to refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) under section 55A of the Act for determination of the fair market value (FMV). In this regard, we draw support from the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Rallis India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income ... direct such reference. It was further held that the valuation by the DVO is a mandatory step when the Assessing Officer disputes the fair market value ITA Nos.158 & 159/Ahd/2023 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2011-12 9 adopted by the assessee. Further, the ITAT Raipur Bench

Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4) Now Ward- 1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 158/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Ishwarbhai Gordhanbhai Prajapati, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Office Ward 3(3)(5) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1344/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Padshah, ARFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr.DR

Section 250Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 56(2)(x)

treated this difference as income from other sources, holding that the assessee had received property for consideration less than its fair market value. Consequently, the AO made an addition of Rs. 18,10,640 to the returned income, and computed the total income at Rs. 29,77,410. Being aggrieved ... July 2013, and other supporting documents. The assessee submitted that the transaction was genuine and the consideration paid was in accordance with the fair market value of the agricultural land at the time of purchase. 4. 1. The CIT(A) examined the facts, written submissions, and case records

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Pune vs. Sanghvi Beauty and Technologies Private Limited, Pune

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue as well

ITA 2120/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Respondent: "1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 56(2)(x)

assessee, ld. AO observed that shares have been issued as per two valuation reports and as per the First Valuation Certificate the Fair Market Value is Rs.50,176/- and in the Second Valuation Certificate the Fair Market Value per share is Rs.1,61,077/-. Justification filed by the assessee ... consideration for issue of shares that exceeds the face value of such shares, the aggregate consideration received for such shares as exceeds the fair market value of the shares: Provided that this clause shall not apply where the consideration for issue of shares is received- (i) by a venture capital

Kalyani Koley, Howrah vs. CIT(A), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 227/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 253(3)

that the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that in the case of one co-owner, namely, Smt. Bela Ghosh the DVO calculated the fair market value of the property at Rs.56,54,783/- and the Assessing Officer should have taken the said valuation of Rs.56,54,783/- as the sale

Yunush Mallick, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 61(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1990/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1990/Kol/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Yunush Mallick Vs Ito, Ward-61(3), Kolkata 114, Type-Ii, Crpf Campus, Sector-V, Salt Lake City, Kol-91. Pan No. :Acgpy2435D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : None राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Pampa Ray, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 03/11/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/11/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Pampa Ray, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 56(2)(x)Section 69A

came to the notice of the Department that the assessee had purchased an immovable property jointly/apparently at a price lower than the fair market value as per stamp duty 2 Yunush Mallick valuation. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under Section 147 of the Income

Seema Sureka, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(3), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2682/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) : (I) Misc. Receipts Of Rs.96,000/- In Cash Shown As Gifts Received & Offered To Tax; (Ii) Receipt Of A Gift Of Rs. 5,84,000/- From An Huf, Claimed As Exempt U/S 56(2) Of The Act; & (Iii) Receipts Of Rs.2,99,133/- Shown As Profit From Commodity Trading, Albeit On Off-Market Basis.

Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

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

Deb Prasanna Choudhury, Kolkata vs. ADIT/DCIT (It) - 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2199/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

property; (c) any property, other than immovable property,— I.T.A. No.: 2199/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deb Prasanna Choudhury. (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

M/S. Thiruvalluvar Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Rasipuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for A

ITA 1737/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 11

statutory auditor under Section 44AB and as the valuer, the valuation certificate prepared by them is not valid for determining the fair market value (FMV) of the shares. Consequently, the valuation and the share premium of Rs.400 per share, as reported by the appellant, cannot be accepted. In an alternative

M/S. Thiruvalluvar Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Rasipuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for A

ITA 1736/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 11

M/S.Thiruvalluvar Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Rasipuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for A

ITA 1735/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 11