← 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

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

ITA 800/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

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

In the result all the five appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 799/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon'Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.799/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2017-18 आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.800/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.801/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2019-20 आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.802/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2020-21 आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.803/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2021-22 Karunya Educational & Research Trust, No.16, Dr.D.G.S.Dhinakaran Road, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-600 028. [Pan:Aaatk0225H] (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai. (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 Per Bench आदेश / Order 1. These Five Appeals In Ita Nos.799/Chny/2025 To 803/Chny/2025 For

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/ Id.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

Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corp Circle 8(1) Ltu - II, Chennai

ITA 1402/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1402/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaaса 4651 L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Ncc-8(1), Ltu-Ii, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1663/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Dcit, Ncc-8, Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaaса 4651 L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Department By : Ms.Ann Marry Baby, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Cross-Appeals Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Ann Marry Baby, CIT
Section 14ASection 92C

first point out, (a) as to whether he was of the view that the transactions conducted by the eligible unit were not at fair market value in terms of section 80-IA(8) of the Act, or that (b) there was any arrangement with AEs in terms of Section