← 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

Hamid Ali, Rohtas vs. ITO, Ward- 3 (4), Sasaram

In the result, ITA No.356/Pat/2025 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

ITA 357/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Rakesh Mishraita Nos.356 & 357/Pat/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 Hamid Ali…..……………..……………………….……….……….……Appellant C/O Gulam Murtaza Zakki Shaheed, Sasaram, Rohtas, Bihar – 821115. [Pan: Atppa8563N] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(4), Sasaram.…………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A.K. Rastogi, Sr. Adv. & Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Madhumita Roy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 12.12.2024 Passed By Nfac, Delhi Arising Out Of The Orders Dated 23.02.2021 & 23.08.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) & U/S 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Respectively For Assessment Year 2018-19. Ita No.356/Pat/2025 Relates To Quantum Order Whereas Ita No.357/Pat/2025 Relates To Penalty Order.

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 50C(2)(a)Section 53C

land for Rs.27,00,000/- but the stamp duty whereof was calculated at Rs.43,17,000/- the same was considered u/s 53C at fair market value by the Assessing Officer; long-term capital gains on sale of land was calculated at Rs.33,82,000/- taking into consideration the stamp value

Hamid Ali, Rohtas vs. ITO, Ward- 3 (4), Sasaram

In the result, ITA No.356/Pat/2025 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

ITA 356/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Rakesh Mishraita Nos.356 & 357/Pat/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 Hamid Ali…..……………..……………………….……….……….……Appellant C/O Gulam Murtaza Zakki Shaheed, Sasaram, Rohtas, Bihar – 821115. [Pan: Atppa8563N] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(4), Sasaram.…………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A.K. Rastogi, Sr. Adv. & Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Madhumita Roy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 12.12.2024 Passed By Nfac, Delhi Arising Out Of The Orders Dated 23.02.2021 & 23.08.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) & U/S 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Respectively For Assessment Year 2018-19. Ita No.356/Pat/2025 Relates To Quantum Order Whereas Ita No.357/Pat/2025 Relates To Penalty Order.

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 50C(2)(a)Section 53C

land for Rs.27,00,000/- but the stamp duty whereof was calculated at Rs.43,17,000/- the same was considered u/s 53C at fair market value by the Assessing Officer; long-term capital gains on sale of land was calculated at Rs.33,82,000/- taking into consideration the stamp value

Protech Packaging Pvt. Ltd, Patna vs. ITO, Ward, 2(2), Patna

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for

ITA 214/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Assessment Year : 2015-16 Protech Packaging Pvt Ltd., 3A, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(2), Patna Ground Floor, Pushpanjali Venkatesh, Budh Marg, Patna- 80000 Pan/Gir No. Aagcp 1473 K (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kumar Singhal, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/09/2025 O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 23.06.2023 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Patna -1/10147/2017-18 Passed For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 607 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Stating That The Order Of Ld Cit(A) Was Passed On 23.6.2023 & The Appeal Was Required To Be Filed Within 60 Days, However, Due To Serious Illness Of The Accountant Who Was Entrusted To Take Steps In P A G E 1 | 5 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar Singhal, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 56

before allotment as provided in rule 11UA r.w.s 56(2)(viib) of the IT Act, 1961. In compliance, the assessee filed computation of fair market value of shares with valuation report of Chartered Accountant dated 17.11.2017 whereby the F.M.V per share of the company was worked ... value shown at Rs. 755822/-. It was found that the assessee has re-valued the land as per valuation report and has taken fair market value of the land based on the circle rate. However, as per rule 11UA(2), the book value of the assets in the balance sheet