← 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

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

ITA 2923/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

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

Pranoo Financial Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 13(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4580/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi & Ms. Sruti KalyanikarFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

ABOVE 3. DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,25,20,000/- U/S.56(2)(viib) OF THE ACT AS ALLEGED SHARE PREMIUM IN EXCESS OF FAIR MARKET VALUE 3.1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in making addition of the amount of Rs.1 ... share) and the face value of the shares (Rs.10/- per share), by treating the share premium (Rs.80/- per share) as excess of the fair market value. 3.2. While doing so, the CIT(A) erred in: (i) Basing his action on surmises, suspicion and conjecture; (ii) Taking into account irrelevant

Jayeshkumar Baldevbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 595/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 250

declaring a long-term capital loss of Rs.12,03,937/-, based on a valuation report obtained from a registered valuer, which took the fair market value of the property as on 01.04.1981 at Rs.300/- per sq.mt. However, the Assessing Officer found that the valuation report lacked supporting data, such ... sales and justification for the rate adopted. Hence, the Assessing Officer referred the matter to the District Valuation Officer (DVO), who assessed the fair market value of the land on 01.04.1981 at only ₹5,17,000/-, much lower than what was claimed by the assessee. A show cause notice

Deluxe Recycling India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2046/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21 Assistant Commissioner Of Deluxe Recycling India Income Tax-4(1)(1), Private Limited Mumbai 13 17 Dady Sheth Agiary Vs. Lane, Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002 (Pan: Aaacd8909N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deluxe Recycling India Private Assistant Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax-4(1)(1), 13 17 Dady Sheth Agiary Lane, Mumbai Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002 (Pan: Aaacd8909N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56Section 56(2)(x)

received shall be taken as full value of consideration, i.e., if the difference is less than 10%, the same can be taken as fair market value. Though this provision is brought in the statute w.e.f. 01.04.2019, however, Courts have consistently held that the same is a beneficial provision and therefore

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Deluxe Recycling India Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 1969/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21 Assistant Commissioner Of Deluxe Recycling India Income Tax-4(1)(1), Private Limited Mumbai 13 17 Dady Sheth Agiary Vs. Lane, Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002 (Pan: Aaacd8909N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deluxe Recycling India Private Assistant Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax-4(1)(1), 13 17 Dady Sheth Agiary Lane, Mumbai Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002 (Pan: Aaacd8909N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56Section 56(2)(x)

received shall be taken as full value of consideration, i.e., if the difference is less than 10%, the same can be taken as fair market value. Though this provision is brought in the statute w.e.f. 01.04.2019, however, Courts have consistently held that the same is a beneficial provision and therefore

Smt. Sheetal Rashmin Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The I. T. O. Ward-2, Gandhidham

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

ITA 182/RJT/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Divyang Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 253(5)

defined under the Income- tax Act, 1961. C. Winnings, if received in kind, would ordinarily have to be quantified with reference to its fair market value, if it's a movable asset. d. Fair market value, as per s. 2(22B), means the price that the asset would ordinarily fetch

Debasis Das, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward 24(1), Hooghly

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

ITA 869/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarmadebasis Das, Vs Ito, Ward-24 (1), Hooghly Motherland Nursing Home, Dankuni, Hooghly-712224 Pan No. :Akfpd 3436 J (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.P.Datta, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manjunatha G, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 17.03.2025 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2020-2021, On The Following Grounds :- 1. That The Addition A Sum Of Rs. 44,95,500/- Is Bad. Illegal & Arbitrary In Nature. 2. That Without Considering The Actual Purchase Consideration Of The Landed Property, The Enhance Valuation Determined By Stamp Duty Valuer Is Mere A Guess Work & Such Enhanced Valuation Is Without Any Basis. Hence Such Enhancement Shall Liable To Be Quashed. 3. That The Assessing Officer Ought To Have Considered The Alternative Remedy Which Are Available In Income Tax Act & Refer This Matter To The Dvo For Fresh Valuation. 4. That On The Basis Of Mere Difference Between Stamp Duty Valuation & Actual Sale Consideration Shall Not Be The Sole Determination For Such Unlawful & Illegal Addition. Hence The Benefit Of Law Which Are Available & Prescribed In The Act Shall Be Taken Into Consideration At The Time Of Such Determination Of Such Income Tax Liability.

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Datta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CIT-Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(x)

making addition of Rs.44,95,500/- being 3/4th share of difference between the sale consideration as per the registered document and fair market value of the property as determined by the stamp duty authority at Rs.59,94,000/- u/s.56(2)(x) of the Act. 3. On appeal, the ld.CIT ... Nineesha Das, in ITA No.794/Kol/2025, order dated 15.07.2025, submitted that the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards difference in sale consideration and fair market value of the property in the case of Smt. Nineesha Das, the wife of the assessee has been set aside to the Assessing Officer with

Kbn Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1455/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankarkbn Infrastructure Private V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Limited बनाम 3(2)(3), Room No. 673A, 6Th B-426, Nbc Complex, Plot No. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 43, Sector-11, Cbd Belapur, Mumbai – 400020, Navi Mumbai - 400 614, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadck3271B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal,ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT-DR)
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 271DSection 68Section 69Section 69A

issue required examination in the light of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act and Rule 11UA to examine the correct and actual Fair Market Value of shares claimed to be sold. The assessee stated that shares of various companies were sold/transferred to several companies/persons. The AO observed that ... with bank statement, Valuation Report of Chartered Accountant in respect of stock/scrips sold at cost since the selling price was more than the fair market value claiming that P a g e | 6 A.Y. 2018-19 KBN Infrastructure Private Limited provisions of section 56(2)(x) and section

Income Tax Officer, New Delhi vs. Nine Plus Inftrastructure Private Limited, Gurgaon

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

ITA 4887/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Devatia, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tiwari, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

method prescribed in Rule 11UA, whereas the Ld.AO proceeded to make the valuation by substituting the valuation of shares by adopting fair market value(FMV). The question that thus arises is whether the Ld.AO is entitled to do the same or not. The Ld.CIT(A) has accorded relief ... that themethod to be adopted is le ft to the choice of the assessee. The appellant haschosen to the 2nd option i.e the fair market value of the unquoted equity sharesdetermined by a merchant banker or an accountant as per the Discounted FreeCash Flow method. It is seen that Page

Musaddilal Mansaram Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 160/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 160/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(a)Section 151Section 153CSection 50C(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

confirmed it under Section 56(2)(vii)(b), without considering the mandate of Section 50C(2), which requires referral to the DVO for fair market value determination. As this statutory procedure was ignored, the addition of Rs. 65,08,900 is unjustified and deserves to be deleted

Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bilaspur vs. Musaddilal Mansaram Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bilaspur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 153/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 160/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(a)Section 151Section 153CSection 50C(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

confirmed it under Section 56(2)(vii)(b), without considering the mandate of Section 50C(2), which requires referral to the DVO for fair market value determination. As this statutory procedure was ignored, the addition of Rs. 65,08,900 is unjustified and deserves to be deleted

Dr. Shruti Ramrao Shujole, DCIT Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad, Aaykar Bhawan Ashram Road Ahmedabad vs. Gsg Abode LLP, Navrangpura Ahmedabad

ITA 665/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Sl. No(S) आयकर अपील सं / It(Ss)A/Ita No(S)/Co No. निर्धारण वर्ष/ Assess- Ment Year(S) अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम/Vs. 2019-20 1. It(Ss)A No. 21/Ahd/2024 Dcit Central Circle-1(2) Ahmedabad - 380 009 Gsg Abode Llp 1001, 10Th Floor Safal Profitaire, Corporate Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 006 Pan:Aatfg 0941 R (Assessee) 2. Co No. 32/Ahd/2024 (In Itss)A No.21/Ahd/2024) 2019-20 (Revenue) Gsg Abode Llp 1001, 10Th Floor Safal Profitaire, Corporate Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad - 380 006 Pan:Aatfg 0941 R (Assessee) Dcit Central Circle- 1(2) Ahmedabad - 380 009 3.

Section 153CSection 69B

consideration was based upon the DVO's report, however, on perusal of DVO's report, it revealed that the DVO had arrived at fair market value of the land after making certain presumptions as well estimates. He also took note of the fact that the DVO had valued the land ... purchased land in similar period to prove that the value of the land as mentioned in the registered sale-deed was reflecting fair market value of the land. He further observed that the variation in the fair market value of land as per DVO and as per registered sale-deed

Dr. Shruti Ramrao Shejole, Aaykar Bhawan Ashram Road vs. Hitendrakumar Bhailalbhai Patel, Navjivan Post Naranpura

ITA 664/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) / Co By : It(Ss)A/Ita Assess- No(S) अपीलाथ' / !(थ' / No(S) /Co No. Ment Appellant बनाम/Vs. Respondent Year(S) 1. It(Ss)A No. 2019-20 Dcit Central Gsg Abode Llp 21/Ahd/2024 Circle-1(2) 1001, 10Th Floor Ahmedabad – 380 Safal Profitaire, 009 Corporate Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 006 Pan:Aatfg 0941 R (Assessee) (Revenue) 2. Co No. 2019-20 Gsg Abode Llp Dcit Central Circle- 32/Ahd/2024 1001, 10Th Floor 1(2) (In Itss)A Safal Profitaire, Ahmedabad – 380 009 No.21/Ahd/2024) Corporate Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 006 Pan:Aatfg 0941 R (Assessee) 3. Ita 2020-21 Dcit Central Csg Abode Llp 665/Ahd/2024 Circle-1(2) Ahmedabad-380 006 Ahmedabad- -380 009 4. It(Ss)A 2019-20 Dcit, Cen.Cir-1(2) Hitendrakumar 19/Ahd/2024 Ahmedabad- Bhailalbhai Patel -380 009 4A Bhailalbhai Bhavan 4A Ketan Society Nr.Sardar Patel Colony Navjivan Post Naranpura-380 014 Pan: Afupp 4221 K 5. It(Ss)A 2019-20 Dcit, Cen.Cir-1(2) Janki Dharmik Patel 20/Ahd/2024 Ahmedabad Ahmeeabad-380 009 Pan: Anjpp 8960 E

Section 153CSection 69B

consideration was based upon the DVO’s report, however, on perusal of DVO’s report, it revealed that the DVO had arrived at fair market value of the land after making certain presumptions as well estimates. He also took note of the fact that the DVO had valued the land ... purchased land in similar period to prove that the value of the land as mentioned in the registered sale-deed was reflecting fair market value of the land. He further observed that the variation in the fair market value of land as per DVO and ITA No.IT(SS)A No.21/Ahd/2024

Dr. Shruti Ramrao Shejole, Aashram Road vs. Harshadkumar Kantilal Savaliya, Iscon Temple Ahmedabad

ITA 663/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) / Co By : It(Ss)A/Ita Assess- No(S) अपीलाथ' / !(थ' / No(S) /Co No. Ment Appellant बनाम/Vs. Respondent Year(S) 1. It(Ss)A No. 2019-20 Dcit Central Gsg Abode Llp 21/Ahd/2024 Circle-1(2) 1001, 10Th Floor Ahmedabad – 380 Safal Profitaire, 009 Corporate Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 006 Pan:Aatfg 0941 R (Assessee) (Revenue) 2. Co No. 2019-20 Gsg Abode Llp Dcit Central Circle- 32/Ahd/2024 1001, 10Th Floor 1(2) (In Itss)A Safal Profitaire, Ahmedabad – 380 009 No.21/Ahd/2024) Corporate Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 006 Pan:Aatfg 0941 R (Assessee) 3. Ita 2020-21 Dcit Central Csg Abode Llp 665/Ahd/2024 Circle-1(2) Ahmedabad-380 006 Ahmedabad- -380 009 4. It(Ss)A 2019-20 Dcit, Cen.Cir-1(2) Hitendrakumar 19/Ahd/2024 Ahmedabad- Bhailalbhai Patel -380 009 4A Bhailalbhai Bhavan 4A Ketan Society Nr.Sardar Patel Colony Navjivan Post Naranpura-380 014 Pan: Afupp 4221 K 5. It(Ss)A 2019-20 Dcit, Cen.Cir-1(2) Janki Dharmik Patel 20/Ahd/2024 Ahmedabad Ahmeeabad-380 009 Pan: Anjpp 8960 E

Section 153CSection 69B

consideration was based upon the DVO’s report, however, on perusal of DVO’s report, it revealed that the DVO had arrived at fair market value of the land after making certain presumptions as well estimates. He also took note of the fact that the DVO had valued the land ... purchased land in similar period to prove that the value of the land as mentioned in the registered sale-deed was reflecting fair market value of the land. He further observed that the variation in the fair market value of land as per DVO and ITA No.IT(SS)A No.21/Ahd/2024

DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad, Aaykar Bhawan Ashram Road Ahmedabad vs. Kantibhai Tapubhai Savalia, Scon Tample Ahmedabad

ITA 662/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) / Co By : It(Ss)A/Ita Assess- No(S) अपीलाथ' / !(थ' / No(S) /Co No. Ment Appellant बनाम/Vs. Respondent Year(S) 1. It(Ss)A No. 2019-20 Dcit Central Gsg Abode Llp 21/Ahd/2024 Circle-1(2) 1001, 10Th Floor Ahmedabad – 380 Safal Profitaire, 009 Corporate Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 006 Pan:Aatfg 0941 R (Assessee) (Revenue) 2. Co No. 2019-20 Gsg Abode Llp Dcit Central Circle- 32/Ahd/2024 1001, 10Th Floor 1(2) (In Itss)A Safal Profitaire, Ahmedabad – 380 009 No.21/Ahd/2024) Corporate Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 006 Pan:Aatfg 0941 R (Assessee) 3. Ita 2020-21 Dcit Central Csg Abode Llp 665/Ahd/2024 Circle-1(2) Ahmedabad-380 006 Ahmedabad- -380 009 4. It(Ss)A 2019-20 Dcit, Cen.Cir-1(2) Hitendrakumar 19/Ahd/2024 Ahmedabad- Bhailalbhai Patel -380 009 4A Bhailalbhai Bhavan 4A Ketan Society Nr.Sardar Patel Colony Navjivan Post Naranpura-380 014 Pan: Afupp 4221 K 5. It(Ss)A 2019-20 Dcit, Cen.Cir-1(2) Janki Dharmik Patel 20/Ahd/2024 Ahmedabad Ahmeeabad-380 009 Pan: Anjpp 8960 E

Section 153CSection 69B

consideration was based upon the DVO’s report, however, on perusal of DVO’s report, it revealed that the DVO had arrived at fair market value of the land after making certain presumptions as well estimates. He also took note of the fact that the DVO had valued the land ... purchased land in similar period to prove that the value of the land as mentioned in the registered sale-deed was reflecting fair market value of the land. He further observed that the variation in the fair market value of land as per DVO and ITA No.IT(SS)A No.21/Ahd/2024

ACIT -7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6574/MUM/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2005-06 Assistant Commissioner Of Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Income Tax-7(1)(1), Ltd. Mumbai Mazdock House, Dockyard Vs. Road, Mazagon, Mumbai – 400010 (Pan: Aaacm8029) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Prateek Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Umashankar Prasad, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

that issue of long term capital gain was not considered by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment proceedings and that the fair market value of the lease land was not considered which resulted in an underassessment of taxable income. It is important to note that in its grounds raised

Ssgr Hospital and Research Centre Private Limited, Haldwani vs. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle, Haldwani

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 73/DDN/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun17 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 69B

return of income filed u/s 153A of the Act. 5. During the course of assessment proceedings, A.O obtained Report of DVO, Kanpur, wherein Fair Market Value of cost of construction of the building situated at Plot No-1, Gas Godam Tiraha, Kaladhungi Road, Kusum Khera, Haldwani was estimated year-wise ... which was considered by the Assessing Officer. 6. The Ld. A.O. in the Assessment Order observed that there is substantial difference in the Fair Market Value of the construction as per the report of the DVO, Kanpur and the value shown by the assessee in its Books of Accounts. Therefore

Ssgr Hospital and Research Centre Private Limited, Haldwani vs. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle, Haldwani

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 72/DDN/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun17 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 69B

return of income filed u/s 153A of the Act. 5. During the course of assessment proceedings, A.O obtained Report of DVO, Kanpur, wherein Fair Market Value of cost of construction of the building situated at Plot No-1, Gas Godam Tiraha, Kaladhungi Road, Kusum Khera, Haldwani was estimated year-wise ... which was considered by the Assessing Officer. 6. The Ld. A.O. in the Assessment Order observed that there is substantial difference in the Fair Market Value of the construction as per the report of the DVO, Kanpur and the value shown by the assessee in its Books of Accounts. Therefore

Ssgr Hospital and Research Centre Private Limited, Haldwani vs. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle, Haldwani

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 71/DDN/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun17 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 69B

return of income filed u/s 153A of the Act. 5. During the course of assessment proceedings, A.O obtained Report of DVO, Kanpur, wherein Fair Market Value of cost of construction of the building situated at Plot No-1, Gas Godam Tiraha, Kaladhungi Road, Kusum Khera, Haldwani was estimated year-wise ... which was considered by the Assessing Officer. 6. The Ld. A.O. in the Assessment Order observed that there is substantial difference in the Fair Market Value of the construction as per the report of the DVO, Kanpur and the value shown by the assessee in its Books of Accounts. Therefore

Ssgr Hospital and Research Centre Private Limited, Haldwani vs. DCIT/ACIT, Cental Circle, Haldwani

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 70/DDN/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun17 Sept 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 69B

return of income filed u/s 153A of the Act. 5. During the course of assessment proceedings, A.O obtained Report of DVO, Kanpur, wherein Fair Market Value of cost of construction of the building situated at Plot No-1, Gas Godam Tiraha, Kaladhungi Road, Kusum Khera, Haldwani was estimated year-wise ... which was considered by the Assessing Officer. 6. The Ld. A.O. in the Assessment Order observed that there is substantial difference in the Fair Market Value of the construction as per the report of the DVO, Kanpur and the value shown by the assessee in its Books of Accounts. Therefore