“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

Indusind Information Technology Ltd ( Now Succeeded on Amalgamation by Hinduja Group Ltd ), Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2592/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mihir Naniwadekar (virtually appeared)&For Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 50C

notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. The assessee objected the adoption of stamp duty value for computation of Fair Market Value of the asset for the purpose of computation of capital and requested that matter should be referred to DVO. The AO referred the matter ... objections raised by appellant were sent to the DVO also who gave factual finding w.r.t. points important for valuation of property for its fair market value. It was noted that property is a corner plot having express highway at its west side and a street named Thiruvalluvar Salai on East

Devika Buildestate Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 525/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

brings on record material to show that the expenditure is not genuine or is excessive and unreasonable having regard to the fair market value, the claim cannot be disallowed merely because the AO considers it high in relation to turnover. CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat

Pandurang Kashinath Bhilare, Pune vs. ITO, (It) Ward 1, Pune

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 198/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.198/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pandurang Kashinath Bhilare, V The Income Tax Rh 05, Insignia, Lane 2, S Department, Ito,(It) Pashan Sus Road, N.I.A.S.O., Ward-1, Pune. Murkutenagar(N.V.), Pune – 411045. Maharashtra. Pan: Ajxpb9871A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Assessee In Person Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2025

Section 147Section 43CSection 56(2)(x)

they apply for valuation of capital asset under those sections; (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; (B) for a consideration which is less than ... 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.” 5.1 Thus, it can be observed that Section 56(2)(x) was introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2017, whereas the agreement was executed on ITA No.198/PUN/2025

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Indusind Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is

ITA 3675/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kalpexh Unadkat &For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

Explanation to section 17(2)(vi) provides that the value of any specified security or sweat equity shares shall be the fair market value of the specified security or swear equity shares, as the case may be, on the date on which the option is exercised by the assessee ... that the perquisite arises on the 'allotment' of shares and second, the value of such perquisite is to be computed by considering the fair market value of the shares on the date on which the option is exercised by the assessee as reduced by the amount actually paid. The position

Indusind Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is

ITA 1842/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

Jagdish Jamaklal Mansukhani, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 7(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2513/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jainam Sonaiya/ Shri Vishal

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Rule 11UA on the ground that the assessee has failed to substantiate the difference in the fair market value of shares and the actual consideration paid by the assessee by cogent documentary evidences. 5. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, who vide an ex parte

Sukh Pal Singh, Sanjauli vs. ITO, Ward-2, Shimla

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 535/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.535/Chandi/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Sukh Pal Singh Ito बनाम/ Sheela Niwas, Chalaunti Ward No-2 Vs. Sanjauli, Hp 171006. Shimla. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aymps-5057-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Raj Kumar Aggarwal (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 28-06-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 22-11-2018. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Assessment Of Long Term

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 50CSection 54FSection 55A

further appeal before us. 3. We find that the extant statutory provisions as applicable to AY 2014-15 mandate adoption of fair market value as on 01-04-1981 and not the adoption of stamp duty / registered vale while computing cost of acquisition as on 01-04-1981. The assessee

Aavishkar Oral Strips Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 369/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Bhupal Goud, C.A

Section 115JSection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

varied significantly from actual results of subsequent financial years. The Ld. AO instead adopted the Net Asset Value (“NAV”) method, and determined the Fair Market Value (“FMV”) of shares accordingly, resulting in an addition of Rs.1,04,89,040/- under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 4. | Aggrieved with

Tutor Investment& Finance Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 1736/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the ITAT, Mumbai Bench “E”, which, vide its order in ITA No. 6752/Mum/2017 dated 15.06.2018, upheld the revisionary order passed under Section 263 of the Act.

For Appellant: Shri Snehal ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 263Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

action of the Learned Assessing officer in making an addition of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- on account of alleged difference in fair market value and actual consideration received for allotment of equity shares without appreciating the facts of the case in the right perspective. 2. The Learned ... completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act for the AY 2009-10. Furthermore, the assessee submitted that the fair market value (FMV) of the shares as on 31.03.2013 was Rs.186 per share, while as on 31.03.2012, it was Rs.207 per share

Ketan Himatlal Mehta, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. NFAC, Not Applicable

Accordingly, order the CIT(A) is overturned and the addition of LTCG of INR.6,30,873/- is deleted. Thus, Ground No. 3 raised by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2497/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: making this addition in the Appellate Order. Reasons assigned by him are wrong and insufficient. Therefore, Appellant prays for the deletion the addition of Rs.6,30,873 as confirmed by the Learned CIT(A).

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Kavita P. Kaushik

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 50CSection 56(2)(x)

bench in case of Shri Sandip Patil v. ITO (supra), wherein, the co-ordinate bench has held that there cannot be two different fair market value in respect of the very same property, i.e. one at the hands of the seller and the other at the hands of the buyer

Lupin Investments Private Limited (Successor to Zyma Laboratories Limited), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 14(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4635/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, Shri Pratik PoddarFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT, D/R

Section 115QSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 35ASection 56(2)(viia)Section 80G

equity shares for total consideration of Rs.19,00,970/- on January 18th, 2016. 5. 1. The assessee was asked to explain why the fair market value of shares should not be taken for the purpose of consideration to be paid for the buy back of shares in terms of Section ... apply on the facts of the case in hand. Dismissing the claim of the assessee, the AO computed the fair market value of unquoted equity shares as per Rule 11UA as under:- Particulars of Zyma Laboratories Amount (Rs.) Ltd. Total Assets as per audited accounts as on 31/03/2015

Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Delhi vs. Hkt Corporation Pvt Ltd, Delhi

The appeal are dismissed

ITA 1036/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 143(3)

previous year in which such stock in trade is sold or otherwise transferred by him, and for the purpose of Section 48. fair market value of the asset on the date of such conversion or treatment, shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing ... contrary to the established position of law. Section 28 was amended by Finance Act 2018 to include clause (via) to provide that the fair market value of inventory as on the date on which it is converted into, or treated as, a capital asset determined in the prescribed manner will

The Asst. CIT., Circle-1(1), Baroda vs. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited, Baroda

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2033/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR &

Section 115JSection 14ASection 50

Salaried and wages of packart press division – Rs. 28,78,876/- 2. Long Term Capital Gains – sale of factory land rejection of fair market value as at 1.4.1981 adopted as per valuer’s report.” Ground No.1:- Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding salary and wages of packart press division ... assessee opted for the benefit available under section 55(2)(b) of the Act and adopted ₹437/- per square meter as the fair market value (FMV) of the land as on 01.04.1981, which had been accepted in earlier years by the CIT(A) in the assessee’s own case

Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1807/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR &

Section 115JSection 14ASection 50

Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1)(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 954/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R

Section 115JSection 144Section 50

appeal: "1. Salaried and wages of packart press division – Rs.28,78,876/- 2. Long Term Capital Gains – sale of factory land rejection of fair market value as at 1.4.1981 adopted as per valuer's report. وو Ground No.1:- Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding salary and wages of packart press ... assessee opted for the benefit available under section 55(2)(b) of the Act and adopted ₹437/- per square meter as the fair market value (FMV) of the land as on 01.04.1981, which had been accepted in earlier years by the CIT(A) in the assessee's own case

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Ambalal Sarabhi Enterprises Limited, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1315/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR &

Section 115JSection 144Section 50

appeal: "1. Salaried and wages of packart press division – Rs.28,78,876/- 2. Long Term Capital Gains – sale of factory land rejection of fair market value as at 1.4.1981 adopted as per valuer's report. دو Ground No.1:- Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding salary and wages of packart press ... assessee opted for the benefit available under section 55(2)(b) of the Act and adopted ₹437/- per square meter as the fair market value (FMV) of the land as on 01.04.1981, which had been accepted in earlier years by the CIT(A) in the assessee's own case

Abusha Investment & Management Services LLP, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3417/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr.Bhabagrahi Dash, CAFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 2(47)Section 250Section 45(1)Section 45(4)

Total Rs. 17,21,50,000/- 100% On 20th February 2017, LifeCell for the purpose of determining the 6. fair market value of the equity shares at which the same can be transferred had revalued its equity shares at Rs. 218.10 per share. Subsequently, M/s. Amuda LLP had re-valued ... assets and the asset being 12,00,000 shares held in Lifecell were revalued at the fair market value as determined in the valuation report on 20th February 2017 at Rs.218.10 per share. Accordingly, the revaluation surplus of Rs.26,17,20,000/- [12,00,000 shares Rs.218.10] was credited

Karunya Educational and Research Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

ITA 803/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.799/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2017-18 आयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.800/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2018-19 आयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.801/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2019-20 आयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.802/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2020-21 आयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.803/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2021-22 Karunya Educational & Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Research Trust, Central Circle-3(1), No.16, Dr.D.G.S.Dhinakaran Road, Chennai. Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-600 028. [Pan:Aaatk0225H] (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. V.Nagaprasad, Advocate & Ms.S.Revathy, F.C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. M.K.Biju, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025

For Appellant: Mr. V.Nagaprasad, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. M.K.Biju, CIT DR

Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)

chats between Mr.Paul Dhinakaran and others, incorrect facts adopted regarding entries found in Chase Bank account statement of Ms.Stella Dhinakaran, grossly ignoring the fair market value of services received and not taking evidence in the form of mails between Smt.Grace and Mr.Timothy Jackson of PWDS into consideration regarding the regular ... case may be. 9.12 In case the AO/ ld.CIT(A) found the expenditure claimed was excessive or unreasonable compared to the fair market value (FMV), the only option available in the Act is to consider invoking provisions of section 40A(2) of the Act and restrict it to FMV instead

Karunya Educational and Research Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

ITA 802/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr. V.Nagaprasad, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. M.K.Biju, CIT DR

Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)

Karunya Educational and Research Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

ITA 801/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Mr. V.Nagaprasad, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. M.K.Biju, CIT DR

Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)