← 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

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(3), Mumbai vs. Underwater Services Company Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 2342/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am Underwater Services Company Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 23/24, Mbpt Building, Malet Bunder Central Circle 5(3), Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Road, Mazgaon, Vs. Mumbai- 400009 Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcu 0302K Underwater Services Company Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 23/24, Mbpt Building, Malet Bunder Central Circle 5(3), Road, Mazgaon, Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Vs. Mumbai- 400009 Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcu 0302K

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R Singh/Akshy PawarFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(2)(b)

noticed that the charter hire charges paid by the assessee to SML, a related party, is excessive as compared to the fair market value of similar charter hire charges. Accordingly, he issued a show cause notice to the assessee to explain why the excess payment made to the related party ... Thus, he was of the view that the payment made by the assessee to its related party does not represent the fair market value. Accordingly, he held that the excess payment made has to be disallowed u/s. 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Having held so, he disallowed

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -5(3), Mumbai vs. Underwater Services Company Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 2341/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am Underwater Services Company Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 23/24, Mbpt Building, Malet Bunder Central Circle 5(3), Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Road, Mazgaon, Vs. Mumbai- 400009 Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcu 0302K Underwater Services Company Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 23/24, Mbpt Building, Malet Bunder Central Circle 5(3), Road, Mazgaon, Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Vs. Mumbai- 400009 Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcu 0302K

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R Singh/Akshy PawarFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(2)(b)

noticed that the charter hire charges paid by the assessee to SML, a related party, is excessive as compared to the fair market value of similar charter hire charges. Accordingly, he issued a show cause notice to the assessee to explain why the excess payment made to the related party ... Thus, he was of the view that the payment made by the assessee to its related party does not represent the fair market value. Accordingly, he held that the excess payment made has to be disallowed u/s. 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Having held so, he disallowed

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5 (3), Mumbai vs. Underwater Services Company Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 2340/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am Underwater Services Company Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 23/24, Mbpt Building, Malet Bunder Central Circle 5(3), Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Road, Mazgaon, Vs. Mumbai- 400009 Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcu 0302K Underwater Services Company Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 23/24, Mbpt Building, Malet Bunder Central Circle 5(3), Road, Mazgaon, Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Vs. Mumbai- 400009 Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcu 0302K

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R Singh/Akshy PawarFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(2)(b)

noticed that the charter hire charges paid by the assessee to SML, a related party, is excessive as compared to the fair market value of similar charter hire charges. Accordingly, he issued a show cause notice to the assessee to explain why the excess payment made to the related party ... Thus, he was of the view that the payment made by the assessee to its related party does not represent the fair market value. Accordingly, he held that the excess payment made has to be disallowed u/s. 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Having held so, he disallowed

Underwater Services Company Ltd, Mumbai Suburban vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 2265/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am Underwater Services Company Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 23/24, Mbpt Building, Malet Bunder Central Circle 5(3), Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Road, Mazgaon, Vs. Mumbai- 400009 Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcu 0302K Underwater Services Company Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 23/24, Mbpt Building, Malet Bunder Central Circle 5(3), Road, Mazgaon, Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Vs. Mumbai- 400009 Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcu 0302K

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R Singh/Akshy PawarFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(2)(b)

noticed that the charter hire charges paid by the assessee to SML, a related party, is excessive as compared to the fair market value of similar charter hire charges. Accordingly, he issued a show cause notice to the assessee to explain why the excess payment made to the related party ... Thus, he was of the view that the payment made by the assessee to its related party does not represent the fair market value. Accordingly, he held that the excess payment made has to be disallowed u/s. 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Having held so, he disallowed

Underwater Services Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 2264/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am Underwater Services Company Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 23/24, Mbpt Building, Malet Bunder Central Circle 5(3), Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Road, Mazgaon, Vs. Mumbai- 400009 Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcu 0302K Underwater Services Company Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 23/24, Mbpt Building, Malet Bunder Central Circle 5(3), Road, Mazgaon, Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Vs. Mumbai- 400009 Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcu 0302K

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R Singh/Akshy PawarFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(2)(b)

noticed that the charter hire charges paid by the assessee to SML, a related party, is excessive as compared to the fair market value of similar charter hire charges. Accordingly, he issued a show cause notice to the assessee to explain why the excess payment made to the related party ... Thus, he was of the view that the payment made by the assessee to its related party does not represent the fair market value. Accordingly, he held that the excess payment made has to be disallowed u/s. 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Having held so, he disallowed

Danish Sheikh, Usa vs. Income Tax Officer Intl Tax Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1034/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 1034/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Danish Sheikh V/S. Ito International Tax, 18, Old Planters Road, बिाम Ward 4(2)(1) Beverly, Usa-999999 Kautilya Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Fjxps3005Q Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Pradip Kapasi राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 43CSection 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(vil)

During the course of assessment proceedings, Ld. AO observed that the assessee had purchased the immovable property at a consideration less than the fair market value of the property, and therefore, sought to add the difference in the fair market value (Rs. 2,24,75,500/-) and the agreement value ... made certain payment at time of P a g e | 11 A.Y. 2016-17 Danish Sheikh booking of flat, stamp duty valuation or fair market value of immovable property was to be considered as on date of payment made by assessee towards booking of flat e) Sanjay Dattatraya Dapodikar

Haneda Trading and Construction Sdn Bhn, West Malaysia vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2073/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1072 & 2073/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 Haneda Trading & The Deputy Commissioner Construction Sdn Bhd, Vs. Of Income Tax, Suite 10-01 Subang Square, Circle 1(2), Corporate Tower, Chennai. 47500, Jalan Ss, 15/4G, Subang Jaya Selangor, West Malaysia Pan: Aagch 2363G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 144(1)(a)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

shares at face value of Rs.10/- from M/s. Haneda Infra Pvt. Ltd., during the assessment year 2014-15. According to the AO, the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the shares was Rs.135.71. The AO was of the view that section 56(2)(vii) of the Act has application and accordingly ... being the differential sum quantified upon rejecting the issue price of equity shares at (-) Rs. 82.36/- per share in reckoning the Fair Market Value of Rs. 135.71/- per share in terms of Section 56(2) (viia) of the Act without assigning proper reasons and justification. 10. The CIT (Appeals

Haneda Trading and Construction Sdn Bhd, West Malaysia vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1072/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1072 & 2073/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 Haneda Trading & The Deputy Commissioner Construction Sdn Bhd, Vs. Of Income Tax, Suite 10-01 Subang Square, Circle 1(2), Corporate Tower, Chennai. 47500, Jalan Ss, 15/4G, Subang Jaya Selangor, West Malaysia Pan: Aagch 2363G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 144(1)(a)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

shares at face value of Rs.10/- from M/s. Haneda Infra Pvt. Ltd., during the assessment year 2014-15. According to the AO, the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the shares was Rs.135.71. The AO was of the view that section 56(2)(vii) of the Act has application and accordingly ... being the differential sum quantified upon rejecting the issue price of equity shares at (-) Rs. 82.36/- per share in reckoning the Fair Market Value of Rs. 135.71/- per share in terms of Section 56(2) (viia) of the Act without assigning proper reasons and justification. 10. The CIT (Appeals