← 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

Shri Gurudev Chandrashekhar Karanth, Pune vs. Income Tax Department CIT(Drp-3), Mumbai

In the result, Grounds Number 1 and 2 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 147/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.147/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Gurudev Chandrashekhar V Income Tax Department Karanth, S. Cit(Drp-3), Mumbai-1. 21 Cozy Retreat, Sindh Colony, Aundh, Pune – 411007. Maharashtra. Pan: Cgnpk6203J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri B.C.Malakar – Advocate Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Under Section 147 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 23.12.2024 For The A.Y.2018-19, Emanating From The Order Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S.144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 20.12.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)(x)Section 6

proposed an addition of Rs.7,75,500/- u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act being the difference in the difference in the Fair Market Value (FMV) determined by the Valuation Officer, Valuation Cell. Mumbai and the actual purchase consideration of the immovable property ETAX DEPAR 5.3.2 The applicant assessee ... accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2019-20 and subsequent assessment years.” Unquote. 7. In this case, to arrive at the Fair market value, the DVO has considered prices of so-calledsimilar flats but actually all the flats considered by the DVO are on 47, 43, 52 floors

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Chennai vs. M. Mahadevan, Chennai

ITA 1826/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1824/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1825/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1826/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. M.Mahadevan, No.24, Park Avenue Street, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-600 030. [Pan: Aajpm5888R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri G.Gireesh, C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.C.Vatchala, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : The Below Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Appellant Revenue For Ay-2013-14, Ay-2014-15 & 2019-20 Contesting The Order Of Ld. First Appellate Authority Indicated Column-E, Herein Below:- S. No. A Appeal Nos. B Ays C Appellant D Cit(A) Order Details E Respondent F 1

For Respondent: Ms.C.Vatchala, CIT

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री यस यस विश्वनेत्र रवि

ACIT Circle-28(1), New Delhi vs. Ajay Singh, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 912/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.912/िद"ी/2020(िन.व. 2015-16) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 28(1), R. No. 1001, 10Th Floor, E-2, Block, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Civic Centre, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant J L Nehru Marg, New Delhi 110002 बनाम Vs. Ajay Singh, B-1, Kalindi Colony, New Delhi 110065 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Abjps-9222-J Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Javed Akhtar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 30.05.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 06.12.2019, For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Revenue In Appeal Has Assailed The Order Of Cit(A) By Raising Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viii)

ignoring the fact that the assessee has acquired shares for a consideration which is less than aggregate fair market value of the shares? 2. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition ... traded on stock exchange and the lowest price traded of M/s. Spicejet Ltd. shares on BSE on 17.03.2015 was Rs.22.88 per share, therefore, Fair Market Value on date of transfer as per section 56(2)(viii)(c) r.w.r. 11UA is Rs.22.88 per share. Thus, the AO made addition of Rs.798

ACIT, Circle--2(1), Chandigarh vs. Csj Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 147/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 131,132 /Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., The Acit, C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Vs Circle 2(1), Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 146, 147/Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, The Acit, Vs M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Circle 2(1), C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Chandigarh. Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 43CSection 50C

assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) made a reference to the DVO for determining the Fair Market Value of the property as contemplated u/s 43CA of the Income Tax Act. The ld. CIT(A) has upheld the addition on the basis ... Report where ld. DVO himself did not adopt the collectorate rate and rather made an observation that adopting collectorate rate to work out Fair Market Value of the subjected property may not be appropriate in this case. In view of the evidence produced by the assessee, moreover, collectorate rates available

ACIT, Circle--2(1), Chandigarh vs. Csj Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 146/CHANDI/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 131,132 /Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., The Acit, C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Vs Circle 2(1), Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 146, 147/Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, The Acit, Vs M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Circle 2(1), C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Chandigarh. Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 43CSection 50C

assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) made a reference to the DVO for determining the Fair Market Value of the property as contemplated u/s 43CA of the Income Tax Act. The ld. CIT(A) has upheld the addition on the basis ... Report where ld. DVO himself did not adopt the collectorate rate and rather made an observation that adopting collectorate rate to work out Fair Market Value of the subjected property may not be appropriate in this case. In view of the evidence produced by the assessee, moreover, collectorate rates available

Csj Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd, Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Circle--2(1), Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 132/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 131,132 /Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., The Acit, C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Vs Circle 2(1), Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 146, 147/Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, The Acit, Vs M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Circle 2(1), C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Chandigarh. Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 43CSection 50C

assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) made a reference to the DVO for determining the Fair Market Value of the property as contemplated u/s 43CA of the Income Tax Act. The ld. CIT(A) has upheld the addition on the basis ... Report where ld. DVO himself did not adopt the collectorate rate and rather made an observation that adopting collectorate rate to work out Fair Market Value of the subjected property may not be appropriate in this case. In view of the evidence produced by the assessee, moreover, collectorate rates available

Csj Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd, Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Circle--2(1), Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 131/CHANDI/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 131,132 /Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., The Acit, C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Vs Circle 2(1), Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 146, 147/Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, The Acit, Vs M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Circle 2(1), C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Chandigarh. Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 43CSection 50C

assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) made a reference to the DVO for determining the Fair Market Value of the property as contemplated u/s 43CA of the Income Tax Act. The ld. CIT(A) has upheld the addition on the basis ... Report where ld. DVO himself did not adopt the collectorate rate and rather made an observation that adopting collectorate rate to work out Fair Market Value of the subjected property may not be appropriate in this case. In view of the evidence produced by the assessee, moreover, collectorate rates available

DCIT(Exemption), Circle-1(1), Delhi vs. Karmanya Education Foundation, Delhi

ITA 3479/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit (Exemption), Vs Karmanya Education Foundation, Circle-1(1), Y-89, Ground Floor, Delhi. Hauz Khas, Delhi – 110 016. Pan: Aaccc6567F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate; Mrs. Mansha Anand, Advocate; Shri Aditya Rathore, Advocate; Sh Abhyudaya Shankar Bajpai, Adv;& Shri Sohum Dua, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 24.05.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’, For Short) In Appeal No.Cit(A), Delhi-40/10496/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 29.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Dcit, Circle Exempt 1(1), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT- DR
Section 11Section 13Section 13(3)Section 143(3)

Rs.1 ,32,57,474/-) on account of payment made to related parties by treating the payments was made as per fair market value. The Ld. CIT(A) has not take into consideration that the payments have been made by the assessee company to its Holding Company without following any qualitative

Vikas Bhagoji Shinde, Pimpri Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 8(4) Akurdi, Nigdi Pradhikaran

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1879/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1879/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vikas Bhagoji Shinde, Vs. Ito, Ward-8(4), Akurdi. 517/2496, Akshay Hsg Society, Sant Tukaram Nagar, Pimpri- 411018. Pan : Adyps0967P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bharat Shah Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai : Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.08.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) The Authorities Below Erred In Making & Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 3050000 U/S 56(Vii)(B) Of The Income Tax Act When The Amount Paid To The Seller As Well As To Others For Cancellation Of Deeds Of This Property Is More Than The Market Valuation. The Addition Made On This Account Be Deleted & Just & Proper Relief Be Granted To The Assessee In This Respect.

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Shah
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56

value. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.30,50,000/- which according to him was the 50% share of the difference of Fair market value & the actual consideration paid by the assesse, in the hands of the assessee as his income as per provisions of section ... seller and consenting parties for cancellation of deed and therefore the question of purchasing the property at less than the fair market value does not arise since the market value of Rs.4,74,00,000/-, is less than the total cost of acquisition i.e. Rs.5,00,20,000/-. 9 Accordingly