“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

Vazhoor Sudarsanan Thampi, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation), Ward-2(1), Bengaluru

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 893/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Ka. Y. 2015-16 Appellant Respondent Vazhoor Sudarshanan The Income Tax Officer Thampi International Taxation Vazhoor House, Ward 2 (1) T C 5/1892Valappad Bangalore Vallapad Beach Thrissur Kerala 680567 Pan Afxpt6193D For Appellant Shri Sidhesh N Gadi, Ca For Respondent Dr. Divya K J Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28-08-2025

Section 142Section 143Section 144Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

Buyers of the shares and bank accounts of assessee and confirmation of those companies. For verification of sources of deposit even other wise fair market value of shares is immaterial in absence of any other evidence with the ld AO. The Ld AO has not made any addition

Nagamma, Raichur vs. Income Tax Office-Ward 1, Raichur

ITA 549/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 54BSection 54FSection 54F(2)

assesssee submitted reply. From the submission it was noticed that property was gifted by assessee's husband. Thus cost of acquisition to the fair market value from 01.04.2001 and it was claimed to be as Rs.20 lakhs. The AO noted that as per the compensation paid by the Government

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota vs. Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota

56. As a result, as regards the issue of allowance/disallowance of

ITA 1099/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT &

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

noted that although the book value of the shares of CTL was 118.91 lakhs (118.73 lakhs + 0.18 lakhs), the appellant considered the fair market value of Rs.151.38 lakhs as determined in the Report of Price Waterhouse Coopers as the sales proceeds from amalgamation and calculated capital gains based on such

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota vs. Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd, Kota

56. As a result, as regards the issue of allowance/disallowance of

ITA 1098/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota vs. Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota

ITA 1097/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT &

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota vs. Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd, Kota

ITA 1091/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT &

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota vs. Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd, Kota

ITA 1090/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT &

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

DCIT, CC-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Goldmine Commodities Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1260/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1260/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Goldmine Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, बनाम/ Goldmine House, V/S. Central Circle-1(4), 4, Niranjan-Nirakar Society, Ahmedabad. Near Shreyas Railway Crossing, Ambawadi Ahmedabad-380007. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaccg1295L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Kishor Goyal, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.04.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] For Assessment Year 2016-17. The Acit, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”], Dcit Vs. Goldmine Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Goyal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 56(2)(viib)

assessee thus received share capital of Rs. 60,00,000/- and share premium of Rs. 11,40,00,000/-. 4. To verify the fair market value (FMV), the AO called for valuation under Rule 11UA. The assessee furnished a certificate signed by M/s Bhadresh Shah & Associates, Chartered Accountants ... method were highly inflated and unrealistic as compared to the actual audited figures and therefore could not be relied upon for determining the fair market value of shares. 8. On these premises, the AO invoked section 56(2)(viib). The AO determined the excess over

Tarun Gupta, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2021-22 is allowed

ITA 437/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Pranshu Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT DR

Section 153C

premises and the Department did not conduct any independent inquiry, nor did it bring any corroborative material on record. On the contrary, the fair market value as determined by the DVO stood at 1.68 crores, which closely aligned with the declared sale value of 1.49 crores. Accordingly, the Tribunal held

Tarun Gupta, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2021-22 is allowed

ITA 436/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Pranshu Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT DR

Section 153C

Tarun Gupta, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2021-22 is allowed

ITA 435/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Pranshu Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT DR

Section 153C

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(1) Vadodara, Vadodara vs. M/S. Inox Wind Energy Limited, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 654/AHD/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Aug 2025

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.654/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner M/S. Inox Wind Energy Of Income Tax, बनाम/ Limited, V/S. Circle-1(1)(1), Abs Tower S. No.1837 & Vadodara. 1834, Op Road, Vadodara-390007. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aafc14628K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”] Dated 27.01.2025, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], On 18.12.2017 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. Dcit Vs. Inox Wind Energy Limited Assessment Year 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

assessee has then apportioned the said figure of Rs. 19,05,66,470/- to specific fixed assets in proportion to their fair market value as per the valuation report of a government approved valuer. The details of apportionment show, inter alia, that the windmills acquired were valued ... assessee is less than the one certified as per form 3CEA. The allocation to individual assets has been made with reference to fair market values and the claim has been consistently pressed from A.Y. 2012-13 onwards. 17. In view of these facts and applying the principle that depreciation once

Savaligayya Basayya Gaddagimath, Dharwad vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Hubli

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

ITA 1011/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Gunashekhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

Guntas along with his brother for a consideration of Rs. 30 Lakh from the vendor namely Shri Ningangouda R Patil. However, the fair market value and stamp duty value of the impugned property was of Rs. 69.3 Lakh. The AO was of the opinion that the difference between stamp value

Sachin Vasant Masurkar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai

ITA 2060/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.2060/Mum/2025 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Sachin Vasant V/S. Dcit Circle 16(3), Masurkar Mumbai बिाम Office No. 104, 201, 1St Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai Floor, National 400002 Insurance Building Dn Road, Mumbai G.P.O., Mumbai 400001 स्थायी लेखा सुं./जीआइआर सुं./Pan/Gir No: Afwpm9401L .. Appellant/अपीलाथी Respondent/प्रधिवादी धििााररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Nishit Gandhi राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Aditya M. Rai- Sr Dr 18.07.2025 स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26.08.2025 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 28.01.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal. “1. Natural Justice

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai- SR DR

Section 250Section 270Section 354Section 56(2)(x)

Income from other sources u's 56(2)(x) of the LT. Act. 2.2 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not considering fair market value which is lower than the annual stamp rates issued by the GoM for the purpose of collection of stamp duty ... 2060/Mum/2025 AY 2018-19 Sachin Vasant Masurkar said stamp duty value did not reflect the fair market value of the property. The property was in a dilapidated condition and the MCGM had already issued a notice for vacating the said property stating it was dangerous to occupy the same

Vimal Kumar Banka, Kanpur vs. ITO Ward-1(2)(1), Kanpur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 25/LKW/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Vimal Kumar Banka V. The Ito 5/P/25, Dabauli Ward 1(2)(1) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Afzb1801J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 24.11.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That As Per The Assessing Officer (Ao), The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Sold An Immovable Property, Jointly Held With Mrs Kanchan Talwar, During The Year Under Consideration For A Consideration Of Rs.10,00,000/- & The Value Of The Same As Per The Stamp Valuation Authority Was Rs.23,15,000/-. The Assessing Officer (Ao), Therefore, Reopened The Case Of The Assessee Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151

Assessing Officer to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer in terms of section 56(2) of the Act to determine the fair market value of the property as on the date of sale that having not been done, the Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking the provisions

Hari Singh Chauhan, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer 3(5), Aayakar Bhawan

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 344/LKW/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Hari Singh Chouhan V. The Income Tax Officer 3(5) 1, Naramau Kanpur Kanpur Nagar (U.P) Tan/Pan:Askpc3749A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Srhi Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Srhi Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 55A

Registered Valuer's Report is not acceptable, he ought to have referred the matter to the Valuation Officer for determination of Fair Market Value, the same having not been done the order passed by the CIT(A) is contrary to the provisions of law, the same be quashed. 6. Because ... section 55A and 50C(2), the CIT(A) was not justified in not referring the valuation to the Valuation Officer for determination of Fair Market Value as on the date of acquisition and transfer of the land, that being in gross violation of law, the order passed

Bhanubhai Manilal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT/DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1) (Previously DCIT, Circle-7(2)), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1840/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 270A(1)Section 54BSection 54F

based on a valuer’s report. Since there was a discrepancy, the Assessing Officer referred the case to the DVO, who held the fair market value of the land as on 1/4/1981 to be Rs. 10,41,000, with assessee’s share at Rs. 4,81,463. Based on this

Kuber Vasantrao Kenjale, Pune vs. ITO Ward 6(5), Pune

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

ITA 2331/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 234CSection 54ESection 54F

that the assessee, for the purpose of cost of acquisition, has relied on the valuation report of a registered valuer for calculating the fair market value of the land. He noted that the valuation report relies on 4 instances / methods to determine the fair market value which are as under ... Instance No. Base for fair market value (FMV) Value (as on 01/04/1981) adopted by Valuer per Sq.mtr 1 The personal enquires Rs. 1050 2 Reverse working of Fair Market Rs. 1470 Value considering the ready reckoner rate for F.Y. 2012-13 3 Reverse working of Fair Market Rs. 697.67 Value

Ramesh Dnyandeo Dhuri, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -22(3)(6), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4425/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 50CSection 56Section 56(2)(x)Section 80C

section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, whereby the tolerance limit for the difference in the fair market value as per 2 ITA No.4425/Mum/ 2025; A.Y. 2018-19 Ramesh Dnyandeo Dhuri valuation report and the actual consideration was increased from 5% to 10%. The amendment ... passing of the assessment order. However, the Ld.AO recorded following observation : “4,3 Since it is not possible for DVO to determine the fair market value of the property in such a short period hence assessment order is passed with a condition that if DVO determines value of the above

Novateur Electrical and Digital Systems Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 944/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari and Shri Lekh Mehta, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 92CSection 92C(2)

Claim of depreciation on the said goodwill in Assessment Year 2011-12 was disallowed by the ld. Assessing Officer on the premise that fair market value adjustment made to land, building and plant and machinery is not correct. Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the said disallowance made ... value adjustments, while referring to the valuation report filed by the assessee. Ld. Assessing Officer took note of certain factual position about the fair market value of the assets and the allocation done by the valuer, which is tabulated below: (In Rs. million) Particulars Net Book Fair Value Fair value