“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

Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai vs. Bona Sera Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 863/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri M. M. Golwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Assessing Officer to take an adverse view. The same are listed as below:- i. According to the ld. Assessing Officer, fair market value of the shares issued by the assessee as per Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules) is Rs.272/- per share whereas, assessee has issued ... share]. According to the ld. Assessing Officer, premium charged by the assessee is very excessive and is not in comparison with the fair market value. ii. Ld. Assessing Officer observed that assessee has not complied with certain conditions specified under the Companies Act, 1956 which requires filing of form

Fragment Nivesh P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 572/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Enormous Nivesh Pvt. Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., 1, Zamrudpur Community Income Tax, Central Circle Centre, Kailash Colony, 13, Ara Centre, New Delhi – 1100 48 Jhandewalan Extension, Pan No. Aabcd1454F Delhi -1100 55 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Fragment Nivesh P. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 1, Zamrudpur Community Income Tax, Central Circle Centre, Kailash Colony, 13, Ara Centre, New Delhi – 1100 48 Jhandewalan Extension, Pan No. Aaecs5314G Delhi -1100 55 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Avikal Manu, CIT - DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 56(2)

submitted that assessee had purchased 4000000 shares of M/s. Bhartiya Hotels Limited @ Rs.10/- per share which comes to Rs.4,00,00,000/-, However fair market value is Rs. 3,87,79,60,000/-(@Rs. 969.49 per share). Difference of fair market value and total purchase consideration ... assessee had also purchased 2000000 shares of M/s. Dunlop Properties Pvt. Ltd @ Rs.10/- per share which comes to Rs.2,00,00,000/-, However fair market value is Rs. 1,97,52,00,000/-(@Rs. 987.60 per share). Difference of fair market value and total purchase consideration

Enormous Nivesh P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 570/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Avikal Manu, CIT - DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 56(2)

Uniproducts (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6596/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhuniproducts (India) Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle 27(1), Khasra No. 360-361, Room No. 193, C.R. Bldg, Village Jonapur, New Delhi – 110 002 Mehraulli Delhi – 110 047 (Pan:Aaacu0224D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Sanjiv Rai Mehra, Ca Respondent By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30 .09.2025

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjiv Rai Mehra, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

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

date of allotment is not getting any mention in the impugned order. Though the rule specifies that value higher of fair market value based on net asset value or discounted cash flow method be adopted to arrive at the conclusion of applying section 56(2)(viib ... view of the aforesaid discussions, we find considerable potency in the contention of the Ld. AR that a specific plea was raised that fair market value based on net asset value was prepared, which valued the net asset value per share at Rs. 67.71/-, the same has been recorded

Yakub Ibrahim Doba, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)(5), Surat

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

ITA 322/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.322/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Yakub Ibrahim Doba Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1 Maiyat Faliya, At: Kathor Tal: 2(2)(5) Kamrej, Surat-394150 Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bqkpd0801P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(vi)Section 56(2)(vii)

action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.52,68,777/- on account of share difference between purchase consideration Value and fair market value determined by the stamp duty valuation authority treated as income u/s.56(2)(vii)(b) of the I.T. Act. ITA No.322/SRT/2025/AY.14-15 Yakub Ibrahim Doba ... purchased two immovable properties along with other 2 co-owners and there was difference of Rs.52,68,777/- between their purchase considerations and fair market value determined by the stamp duty valuation authority. On the aforesaid difference of Rs.52,68,777/-, provision of section

Syed Rafat Zubair Rizvi, Lucknow vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 383/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Syed Zubair Rizvi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Kaiserbagh Avenue, Lucknow, (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi Uttar Pradesh Pan: Ajvps4151L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Aleem Khan, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.09.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit Nfac, Dated 26.3.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 On 19.11.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because Appellant Has Filed Return Of Income On 19.08.2015 For Ay 2015-16 Vide Acknowledgment No.649289701140618 Showing Total Income Of Rs.1,10,51,960/- 2. Because Appellant Sold 14Flats, 2Shops & 2Lands In Assessment Year 2015-16 The Said Building Was Constructed In The Year 2005-06 As A Commercial Building Knows As Essaar Mall. But Due To Local Factors Assessee Failed To Sold His Premises & After Many Years Of Failure He Decided To Convert The Same Into Residential Building & The Flats Were Constructed In The Year 2013. Due To Blockage Of Fund & Non-Sale Of Flats Assessee Sold At The Lower Rate Approval Of Residential Construction Form The Up Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Was Also Obtained Before Converting The Commercial Construction To Residential. 3. Because An Addition Of Rs.87,46.596/- Is Made By Ld. Assessing Officer On The Basis Of Valuation Report Vide Letter F.No.1200To 1213/Avo/Itd/Lko/2017-18/872 Dated 19.03.2018 Which Was Sustained By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department, Nfac

For Appellant: Sh. Aleem Khan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR

Section 147Section 43C

sustained by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax department, NFAC 1 Syed Rafat Zubair Rizvi A.Y. 2015-16 4. Because fair market Value evaluated by Valuation officer is not the true indicator of actual market value because the property has not been valued as per normal practice

Laxmanji Javanji Dodiya, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Anand

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

ITA 593/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2022-23

Section 144Section 23(1)(c)Section 24Section 54FSection 68

assessee did not comply to this requirement, the Assessing Officer had referred the matter to the Verification Unit to find out the fair market value of the properties. On the basis of the enquiry conducted by the Verification Unit, the fair rental value of five properties was taken at Rs.5

Income Tax Officer, Jalna vs. Vikram Tea Processor Private Limited, Jalna

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 685/PUN/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri J P BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremeth, Addl CIT

Section 143(2)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 92A(2)(a)Section 92BSection 92C

made to the related parties for the expenditure which are debited to the Profit & Loss Account are at par or less than the fair market value of the transaction. He submitted that the assessee and both the AEs are paying taxes in the higher bracket and therefore, there

Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jalna, Jalna vs. Vikram Tea Processor Private Limited, Jalna

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2285/PUN/2024[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri J P BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremeth, Addl CIT

Section 143(2)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 92A(2)(a)Section 92BSection 92C

Ideaforge Technology Ltd, Mahape vs. ACIT, Circle 15(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 867/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 867/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ideaforge Technology V/S. Assistant Commissioner Ltd. बिधम Of Income Tax, Circle El-146, Ttc Industrial 15(2)(1), Mumbai Area, Electronic Zone, Room No. 357, 3Rd Floor, Midc, Mahape, Navi Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Mumbai Karve Road, Mumbai 400020 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabci6495B Appellant/अपीलधथी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्धाररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi Shri. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (Sr Dr) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date Of Hearing 22.08.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 11.12.2024, Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “On The Facts & In Law, 1. The Hon. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Id Ao In Making Addition Of Rs. 6,60,02,100/- By Relying Upon The Provisions Of Section 56(2)(Viib) Of The It Act, 1961 On The Ground That The Consideration Received By The Appellant For Issue Of P A G E | 2

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi

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

appellant for issue of P a g e | 2 ITA No. 867/Mm/2025 Ay 2017-18 Ideaforge Technology Ltd. unquoted shares exceeded the fair market value of such shares, disregarding the valuation as per Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Method adopted by the appellant by relying upon Rule 11UA ... required to be determined as per rule 11UA(1)(c)(b) (Para 9/page no. 6 of asst order) thereby incorrectly computing the fair market value of shares, as per NAV method at Rs. 2447 10 per share. Thus, the Id.AO has brought to tax a sum of Rs.14043.90 (Rs.16491/- minus

Jashoda Khimji Bhadra, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4997/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailjashoda Khimji Bhadra, 102, Shubh Apt, Opp Kelkar College, 90 Feet Road, Mulund (E), Mumbai – 400081 ............... Appellant Pan : Abvpb5569P

For Appellant: Ms. Rupa NandaFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Chandra, Sr.DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

joint owner, resulting in double addition. 2) The Appellant was not allotted the property at the date of the agreement, and therefore, the fair market value adopted by the Assessing Officer is incorrect. 2. The Learned CIT(A) erred in passing the appellate order without granting a reasonable opportunity

M/S Arena Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward, 41(4)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for stati...

ITA 6322/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Mrugakshi Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

what fair from the internal comparables of the assessee as to what fair from the internal comparables of the assessee as to what fair market value of the interest rate payment and therefore, in the market value of the interest rate payment and therefore market value of the interest rate ... assessee to provide all necessary documentary evidence justifying assessee to provide all necessary documentary evidence justifying M/s Arena Enterprises Nos. 6321 & 6322/MUM/2024 the fair market value of the interest the fair market value of the interest rate applicable in respect of rate applicable in respect of loans availed from individual

M/S Arena Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 41(4)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6321/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Mrugakshi Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

Ashok Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT Central Delhi-1, Delhi

ITA 1821/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 263

this office, it is learnt that you have claimed cost of acquisition of the said loose diamonds which is apparently higher than the fair market value of such diamonds and had shown capital loss from such sale. From the perusal of the documents found during the course of search ... relied upon by you, it has seen that the said loose diamonds were acquired by you before 01.04.2001 and therefore the fair market value of the loose diamonds shall be considered as its cost of acquisition for the purpose of computation of taxable capital gains. From the said submission

Ashok Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT Central Delhi-1, Delhi

ITA 1820/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 263

Ashok Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT Central, Delhi-1, Delhi

ITA 1819/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 263

DCIT Circle-13(2), New Delhi vs. Jus Scriptum Magnus Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, we dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue

ITA 8259/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

Assessing Officer after perusing the valuation report furnished by the assessee found certain discrepancies in the projection used for determining the fair market value using DFCF method. The assessee was asked to furnish further details on the abovesaid valuation report. In response, assessee has submitted the details of projections before ... abovesaid notices. The Assessing Officer rejected the valuation report submitted by the assessee and proceeded to adopt the NAV method and determined the fair market value at Rs.64.3 per share. Accordingly, he proceeded to make the difference between share premium received and value determined under NAV method was added

Javidbhai Ahemadbhai Mansuri, Patan vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Patan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1194/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblejavidbhai Ahemadbhai Mansuri, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Prop. Aamil Surgical Hospital, Ward -1, Subhadranagar, Near C.T. Point, Patan Patan-384265 [Pan : Agnpm 6086 B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ganta Manoj Kumar G., Ca Respondent By: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri Ganta Manoj Kumar G., CAFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr DR

Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

cent", the words "twenty per cent" had been substituted;] (c) any property, other than immovable property,— (A) without consideration, the aggregate fair market value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the whole of the aggregate fair market value of such property; Javidbhai Ahemadbhai Mansuri Vs ITO Asst. Year ... 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… ……” 3.5 Thus, on going through the provisions of the Act, since the assessee has entered into an agreement

Subhlaxmi Gurunath Kamat, Sindhudurg vs. Income Tax Officer, Kudal

ITA 1795/PUN/2025[A.Y.2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Sept 2025

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1795/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Subhlaxmi Gurunath Kamat, V The Income Tax Officer, 308, Kalasewadi, Banda S Ward-1, Kudal, S.O.(Sindhudurg), Banda, Sindhudurg. Sindhudurg – 416510. Pan: Cmwpk9642J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar– Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2018-19 Dated 06.05.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 06.03.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 48(1)Section 50C

appellant submits as under, without prejudice to each other: a. The amount of actual sale consideration at Rs. 40,00,000 being the fair market value, it is incorrect on the part of the AO to proceed with the provisions of section 50C without referring the valuation to the Departmental

DCIT-CC-6(1), Mumbai, Bkc, Kautilya Bhawan vs. Shailendra Rameshchandra Rathi, Pune

ITA 2924/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi and Ms Aadnya Bhandari, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Mr. R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(14)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69A

course of assessment, ld. Assessing Officer observed that assessee had purchased various lands during the year which were purchased at lower than fair market value, details of which are tabulated as under: Sr Address Area Agreement Fair market Enclosed No in value Value as hectre per Index