← 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

Smt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(2), Thane

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4753/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon‟Ble Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosainsmt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani Vs. Ito, Ward 3(2) 1 A/34, Drugs Society, Opp. Room No. 4, 6Th Floor, Jk Gram, Samatha Nagar B-Wagle Estate, Midc, Pokhran Road No. 1 Thane (W) Thane (W). Pan/Gir No. Aaupj0472D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nishit Gandhi Revenue By Shri Chetan M. Kacha, (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 22.08.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. All The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Interrelated & Interconnected & Relates To Challenging The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) In Upholding The Order Of Ao In Reopening The 2 Smt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani, Mumbai

Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

37ITR 288 (SC)} 8. The appellant further humbly submits that in any case, section 56(2)(vii)(c) envisages taxing the fair market value of the movable property received without consideration. Firstly, natural love and affection is a valid consideration as held in numerous judgements. Secondly, without undertaking the exercise ... computing the fair market value, the Ld. A.O. cannot proceed ahead for making addition in the hands of the appellant. Therefore, the invocation of section 56 is invalid and the addition made by him deserves to be deleted. 6 Smt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani, Mumbai 9. It is therefore submitted that

Madhukar Wadhera, United States of America vs. AO Int Tax Circle 3(1)(1) Del, Civic Centre

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2220/DEL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 2220/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2020-21 Madhukar Wadhera, Vs Assessing Officer, 23, Turf Lane Roslyn Heights, Intl. Tax Circle-3(1)(1), New York, Usa-11577 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adrpw7079B Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor & Sh. Tarun Chanana, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Vijay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.06.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2020-21 Arises Against The Ao, Circle Intl. Tax-3(1)(1), Delhi, Assessment Order Dated 28.06.2023 Framed In Consequence To The Dispute Resolution Panel (“Drp”)-2, New Delhi Directions Dated 08.02.2023, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor &For Respondent: Sh. Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 55(2)Section 55(2)(b)

total consideration of Rs.7,21,00,000/-. All this followed his long term capital gains computation adopting the cost of acquisition thereof i.e. fair market value as on 01.04.2001 u/s 55(2), to the tune of Rs.2,33,73,000/- @ Rs.25,000/- per sq. yards. We reiterate further that ... Rs.27,000/- per sq. yards as per the case records. 5. We are of the considered view in this factual backdrop that fair market value of the assessee’s above residential plot/capital asset deserves to be adopted at a lump sum figure of Rs.20,000/- per sq. yards

Hemantkumar Gajanan Lad, Kalamboli vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Panvel

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2765/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: PendingITAT Pune04 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2765/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Hemantkumar Gajanan Lad, Vs. Ito, Ward-5, Panvel. 703, Krushidhan Chs, Sector 3, Kalamboli- 410218. Pan : Abjpl6243N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajinkya M. Vaishampayan Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing 02.06.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement : 04.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit. Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Objection To Condone The Delay, Therefore We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Ajinkya M. Vaishampayan
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 45(1)

quid pro quo for the compulsory acquisition of his land after paying back Rs. Y. In that view of the matter, the fair market value of these two plots minus Rs. Y will constitute full value of consideration in the first transaction of transfer of agricultural land by compulsorily acquisition ... compulsory acquisition been of some non-agricultural land, the capital gain chargeable to tax would have resulted by taking the fair market value of the two plots minus Rs. Y as full value of consideration. 5. Now we turn to the second transaction of the transfer of Plot Nos.20