“fair market value”

Zarah Rafique Malik, Mumbai vs. ITO (Int Tax) Ward-3(2)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Hon’Blezarah Rafique Malik Income Tax Officer, (Int.Tax) B/1703, Vivarea Condominium, Ward- 3(2)(1), Mumbai Vs. Sane Guruji Marg, Jacob Circle, Mahalaxmi East Mumbai – 400 011 Pan : Adcpm8960G (Appellant) (Respondent)

into account. Having regard to the above position, the assessee was rightly allowed by the Tribunal to exercise the option of substituting the fair market value of the plot of land as on 1-1-1954 for the actual cost thereof ax contemplated under section 55(2) in computing

Smita Suresh Janwalkar, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Navi Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsmita Suresh Janwalkar Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 27(3)(1), Bldg No 168 Panchaganga It-Office, Vasi Railway Station Chs, Pantnagar, Ghatkopar E, Building, Thane, Mumbai-400075. Navi Mumbai-400703. Pan/Gir No: Bbqpj2341M (Appellant) (Respondent)

property is situated on leasehold land, forms part of an SRA project, and is surrounded by slum area, which materially affects its fair market value. 8. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order without awaiting the valuation report ... learned CIT(A) failed to consider and appreciate that the preliminary valuation report of the Departmental Valuation Officer dated 01.06.2023 determined the fair market value of the property at 10,12,000, which clearly demonstrates that the addition made under section 56(2)(x) is arbitrary and unsustainable

Vikas Satish Khanna, Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer, Circle 13(3)(2), Aaykar Bhawan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethvikas Satish Khanna, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Circle 13(3)(2), 102, Green Acres Apartment, 61/B, Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai-400020. Pali Hill Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050. Pan/Gir No: Ahzpk7423R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ashwin Chhag Respondent By Shri Akhtar H. Ansari (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 26.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11.03.2026 O R D E R Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am:

Vikas Satish Khanna was passed by making an addition of Rs.7,17,500/-, being the difference between purchase consideration and fair market value determined by the DVO. The difference of Rs.7,17,500/- was 4.63% of the total consideration. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal ... before the CIT(A). The appellant submitted that the difference in value of Rs.7,17,500/- is 4.63% of the fair market value determined by the DVO. Since the difference was not more than 10% of the transaction value, the addition is against law. The appellant referred to section

Equifax Credit Information Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD-9(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for A

specified person, and the Assessing Officer is of the opinion that such expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the goods/services/facilities, or the legitimate needs of the business, or the benefit derived, then so much of the expenditure as is considered excessive/unreasonable ... benefit analysis, or any demonstrable excess. In the present case, the disallowance sustained by the Assessing Officer is not founded on any such fair market value analysis; rather, it appears to have been sustained largely on the perceived mismatch and on a broad assertion about lack of substantiation. Once

Equifax Credit Information Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD-9(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for A

specified person, and the Assessing Officer is of the opinion that such expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the goods/services/facilities, or the legitimate needs of the business, or the benefit derived, then so much of the expenditure as is considered excessive/unreasonable ... benefit analysis, or any demonstrable excess. In the present case, the disallowance sustained by the Assessing Officer is not founded on any such fair market value analysis; rather, it appears to have been sustained largely on the perceived mismatch and on a broad assertion about lack of substantiation. Once

Dentsu Aegis Network India Private Limited(Erstwhile Vizeum Media Service India Merged in Dan India), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle 8(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardentsu Aegis Network Dcit Central India Private Limited Circle-1(1), (Erstwhile Vizeum Media Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Service India Merged Maharashi Karve With Dentsu Aegis Marg, Mumbai-400 Network India Private 020 Limited W.E.F. 1St April 2017) 2Nd Floor, Devchand House, Dr. A. B. Road, Shiv Sagar Estate Mumbai, Worli So, Mumbai-400 018 Pan/Gir No. Aahca3058N (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved & Shri Abdul Kadir Jawadwala, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2026

third and crucial condition prescribed in section 40A(2), namely, that the expenditure should be excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the services, the legitimate business needs of the assessee or the benefit derived therefrom, had not been satisfied. The learned AR pointed out that ... Assessing Officer had not recorded any finding that the salary reimbursement was excessive or unreasonable with reference to the fair market value of the services or the benefit derived by the assessee. On the contrary, the Assessing Officer had merely doubted the arrangement on the ground that the agreements were