← 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

Lata Sharadrao Khadse, Nagpur vs. ITO WD3(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 549/NAG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta. ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

despite the difference being less than the tolerance limit of 5% prescribed under the proviso to section 50C. 6. Arbitrary Fair Market Value as on 01.04.1981: The Assessing Officer erred in adopting the fair market value of 25,000/- per acre as on 01.04.1981 on the basis of an alleged ... that the assessee along with eleven other co–owners have sole two properties during F.Y. 2013–14 and there is variation in the fair market value as per SRO and the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee has sold agricultural lands, which

Alkesh Sharadraoji Khadse, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 3(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 544/NAG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta. ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

despite the difference being less than the tolerance limit of 5% prescribed under the proviso to section 50C. 6. Arbitrary Fair Market Value as on 01.04.1981: The Assessing Officer erred in adopting the fair market value of 25,000/- per acre as on 01.04.1981 on the basis of an alleged ... that the assessee along with eleven other co–owners have sole two properties during F.Y. 2013–14 and there is variation in the fair market value as per SRO and the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee has sold agricultural lands, which

Lata Sharadrao Khadse, Nagpur vs. A.O. Ward 3(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 537/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta. ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

despite the difference being less than the tolerance limit of 5% prescribed under the proviso to section 50C. 6. Arbitrary Fair Market Value as on 01.04.1981: The Assessing Officer erred in adopting the fair market value of 25,000/- per acre as on 01.04.1981 on the basis of an alleged ... that the assessee along with eleven other co–owners have sole two properties during F.Y. 2013–14 and there is variation in the fair market value as per SRO and the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee has sold agricultural lands, which

Alkesh Sharadraoji Khadse, Nagpur vs. A.O. Ward 3(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 536/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta. ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

despite the difference being less than the tolerance limit of 5% prescribed under the proviso to section 50C. 6. Arbitrary Fair Market Value as on 01.04.1981: The Assessing Officer erred in adopting the fair market value of 25,000/- per acre as on 01.04.1981 on the basis of an alleged ... that the assessee along with eleven other co–owners have sole two properties during F.Y. 2013–14 and there is variation in the fair market value as per SRO and the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee has sold agricultural lands, which

Pawan Sharadrao Khadse, Nagpur vs. A.O. Ward 3(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 534/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta. ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

despite the difference being less than the tolerance limit of 5% prescribed under the proviso to section 50C. 6. Arbitrary Fair Market Value as on 01.04.1981: The Assessing Officer erred in adopting the fair market value of 25,000/- per acre as on 01.04.1981 on the basis of an alleged ... that the assessee along with eleven other co–owners have sole two properties during F.Y. 2013–14 and there is variation in the fair market value as per SRO and the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee has sold agricultural lands, which

Sh. Sukhvinder Singh, Kanpur vs. Pr CIT, Central, Kanpur

ITA 191/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 263

Rules, 1962, if the quoted shares and securities are received by way of transactions carried out through any recognised stock exchange, the fair market value of such shares and securities shall be the transaction value as recorded in such stock exchange. The assessee has also placed reliance on the various ... account of the assessee and the transactions have been made through registered broker on recognised stock exchange and also keeping in view the fair market value as per Rule 11UA and decision of various Appellate authorities, no adverse inference is drawn. 5. The property number 117/136-B-4, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur

Sh. Sukhvinder Singh, Kanpur vs. Pr CIT, Central, Kanpur

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 190/LKW/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 263

Rules, 1962, if the quoted shares and securities are received by way of transactions carried out through any recognised stock exchange, the fair market value of such shares and securities shall be the transaction value as recorded in such stock exchange. The assessee has also placed reliance on the various ... account of the assessee and the transactions have been made through registered broker on recognised stock exchange and also keeping in view the fair market value as per Rule 11UA and decision of various Appellate authorities, no adverse inference is drawn. 5. The property number 117/136-B-4, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur

Priyanka Kishore Gurnani, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle - 3, Jaipur

Appeals are allowed and the impugned orders by Learned PCIT are hereby set aside

ITA 864/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Ankit Bubna, Ld. C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, Ld. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, and the Assessing Officer has been directed to make necessary verification particularly as regards the fair market value of shares of M/s Vankon Moduler Pvt. Ltd., which, as observed by Learned PCIT, should have been calculated at the rate ... prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, and the Assessing Officer has been directed to make necessary verification particularly, as regards the fair market value of shares of M/s Vankon Moduler Pvt. Ltd., which as observed by Learned PCIT, should have been calculated at the rate

Kishore Kumar Gurnani, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle - 3, Jaipur

Appeals are allowed and the impugned orders by Learned PCIT are hereby set aside

ITA 863/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Ankit Bubna, Ld. C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, Ld. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, and the Assessing Officer has been directed to make necessary verification particularly as regards the fair market value of shares of M/s Vankon Moduler Pvt. Ltd., which, as observed by Learned PCIT, should have been calculated at the rate ... prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, and the Assessing Officer has been directed to make necessary verification particularly, as regards the fair market value of shares of M/s Vankon Moduler Pvt. Ltd., which as observed by Learned PCIT, should have been calculated at the rate

Base Metal Chemicals, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(3) Now Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 361/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: The First Appellate Authority Which Was Decided By Ld. Cit(A) Vide The Impugned Order & The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed.

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40

same job work. The A.O., therefore, held that the conversion charge paid to the Partner was excessive considering the fair market value of the services rendered. According to the A.O., the fair market value of the service rendered was @ Rs. 5 per Kg only. Therefore, I.T.A No. 361//Ahd/2025 ... work charge paid by the assessee to its partner can’t be held as excessive and unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the services rendered and the benefits derived. Considering the commercial realities of the business and the principle of revenue neutrality, no addition under Section

Suresh Ranchhodbhai Tandel, Daman & Diu (Ut) vs. Income Tax Officer, Daman Ward, Daman

ITA 508/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.508/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Suresh Ranchhodbhai Tandel Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ 8/211, Parkota Street, Ward-Daman-396 210 Vs. Nanidaman,Daman-396 210 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acvpt 6024 G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca राज" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing 23/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 15/10/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250

capital loss on sale of property. 6. On perusal of the details/documents furnished by the assessee, it was noticed by the AO that fair market value of non-agricultural land (as on 01.04.1981) was considered as the cost of the land. The AO, therefore, issued, show cause notice stating that

Shubhangi Pravin Nidhan, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 3(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 545/NAG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta.A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

consideration of Rs. 55.55,295/- even though the difference was less than 5% as permitted under the proviso to Section 50C 4. Arbitrary Fair Market Value as on 01.04.1981: The Assessing Officer erred in adopting the fair market value of 25,000/- per acre as on 01.04.1981 on the basis ... that the assessee along with eleven other co–owners have sole two properties during F.Y. 2013–14 and there is variation in the fair market value as per SRO and the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee has sold agricultural lands, which

Shubhangi Pravin Nidhan, Nagpur vs. A.O., Ward 3(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 535/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta.A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

consideration of Rs. 55.55,295/- even though the difference was less than 5% as permitted under the proviso to Section 50C 4. Arbitrary Fair Market Value as on 01.04.1981: The Assessing Officer erred in adopting the fair market value of 25,000/- per acre as on 01.04.1981 on the basis ... that the assessee along with eleven other co–owners have sole two properties during F.Y. 2013–14 and there is variation in the fair market value as per SRO and the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee has sold agricultural lands, which

Bhupendrabhai Bhikhabhai Patel, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-3, Anand

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

ITA 1005/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

Rs.29,65,802/- as deemed value of sale consideration u/s 50C of the Act without referring the valuation to the DVO to ascertain fair market value of the land under consideration without offering any cogent reasons for non-reference to DVO despite of repeated requested of your appellant for reference ... arriving the fair market value of the land under consideration and thus depriving the appellant of the alternative remedial machinery available in the Act. Thus, making an addition of STCG of Rs.24,53,638/- to the total income of the appellant is illegal, unwarranted and the addition is liable

Harshadkumar Hargovandas Patel, Kalol vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Mehsana

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

ITA 125/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 55A

case and completed the assessment determining Long-Term Capital Gain (LTCG) after making certain disallowances. 3.1 The dispute was with respect to the fair market value (FMV) of the land as on 01.04.1981. The assessee had adopted the value of Rs.72,84,500/- based on a registered valuer's report ... assessee had sold land during the relevant assessment year and, for the purpose of computing Long-Term Capital Gains, had adopted the Fair Market Value (FMV) as on 01.04.1981 at ₹250 per square meter based on a detailed valuation report prepared by a Government-approved registered valuer. The said report

Harshadkumar Hargovandas Patel, Kalol vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Mehsana

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

ITA 124/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 55A

case and completed the assessment determining Long-Term Capital Gain (LTCG) after making certain disallowances. 3.1 The dispute was with respect to the fair market value (FMV) of the land as on 01.04.1981. The assessee had adopted the value of Rs. 72,84,500/- based on a registered valuer ... assessee had sold land during the relevant assessment year and, for the purpose of computing Long-Term Capital Gains, had adopted the Fair Market Value (FMV) as on 01.04.1981 at 2250 per square meter based ITA Nos. 124&125/Ahd/2023 Harshadkumar Hargovandas Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year

Naveen Kumar Musinipally, Usa vs. ADIT (Int-Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee partly

ITA 323/HYD/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, K C DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Posu Babu Alli, Sr. AR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 234A

merely a guideline value for the purpose of the levy of stamp duty under the stamp Act and does not represent the Fair Market Value. Therefore, erred in confirming the SRO value of the land as on 01.04.2001. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee ... computed for the assessment year 2016-2017. The Assessing Officer further noted that, while computing the capital gains, the assessee has adopted fair market value of the property as on 01.04.2001 at Rs.7000/- per sq. yard, whereas, the fair market value of the property as per the SRO vide letter

ACIT, Non-Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai vs. Late Shri Mahaveer Bhandari, Legal Heir- Smt. Lalitha Bhandari, Chennai

ITA 2785/CHNY/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2785/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Asst. Commissioner Of Late Shri Mahaveer Bhandari, Income Tax, Rep. By Legal Heir Smt. Lalitha Non-Corporate Circle 7(1), Vs. Bhandari, Chennai. 9, Athipattan Street, Mount Road, Chennai – 600 002. Pan: Aadpb 877A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ajith Kumar Chordia, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri Ajith Kumar Chordia, CA
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 56(2)(vii)

addition on account of section 56(2)(vii) of Rs. 7,85,10,196/- as it was correctly computed based on the Fair Market Value as on the date of transfer. Ground No. 6 - The learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.99,39,998/- on account ... Since there is no actual flow of cash, and being an exchange of share, the Full Value of consideration has to be the Fair market value of the shares as on date of transfer. Hence the Full value of consideration is adopted @Rs.586 per share and LTCG is therefore determined

A B Propmart Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 108/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] A B Propmart Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, Punjabi Bhawan, 10 Ward-1(1), Rouse Avenue, Delhi-110002. Delhi Pan-Aagca7340G Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Chandan Agarwal, Ca & Shri Ajay Marwah, Ca Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15.10.2025 Order

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

taken by the assessee, the value per share would be increased. This further established that the shares were issued by the assessee on fair market value and accordingly, addition sustained at INR 8,19,09,656/- deserves to be deleted. Ld.AR for the assessee filed synopsis in support ... Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. for a premium of INR 5,056/- per share. The AO alleged that this valuation was done based on the fair market value of land as on the date of valuation though the said land was purchased and disclosed in the balance sheet

Dimple Rajesh Oswal, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(1), Pune

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

ITA 1506/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Bharat ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Sailee Dhole, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)(vii)

purchase of immovable property. As there is difference in the computation of the SRO value of the property and the fair market value (as claimed) the AO has noticed that provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) are attracted in the present case and the difference of Rs.10 ... considered view that the AO has rightly added difference in the computation of the SRO value of the property and the fair market value (as claimed) based on detailed factual and legal evidence. The evidence furnished by the appellant before me in the form of reply do not carry