← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle)-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Deep Infraprojects LLP, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1561/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1561/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Deep Infraprojects Llp 10Th Floorhouse, Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Nr. Ambawadi Circle, Ahmedabad Ambawadi, Ahmedabad- 380006 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaqfd3530J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Vartik Choksi, Shri Dhrunal Bhatt & Shri Gulab Thakor, A.Rs. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Arvind Kumar, Cit. Dr 22/01/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2025 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Ahmedabad (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 05.07.2024 For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Purchased A Land Situated At Ambli Road, Ahmedabad During The Year For A Consideration Of Rs.75 Crore, As Per The Executed Sale Deed. In The Course Of Search Conducted At The Residential Premises Of One Shri Divyang Vyas, Certain Documents Were Found, As Per Which It Transpired That Certain On-Money Was Paid In The Purchase Transaction Of This Land. In The Course Of

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, Shri DhrunalFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT. DR
Section 69B

purchased by the assessee for a consideration of Rs.75 Crores. Thereafter, the AO had referred the matter to the DVO to determine the Fair Market Value (‘FMV’) of the property which was determined at Rs.100.78 Crores by the DVO. On the basis of the DVO’s report ... adopted such high value, valuation of land would be nearer to value of land purchased by appellant (vii) While arriving at fair market value of land, he has completely ignored comparable sale instances of land in nearby vicinity in same TP area which was already referred in valuer's report

Ramasamy Solaisamy, Virudhunagar vs. ITO, Ncc-2, Madurai

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

ITA 2397/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2397 /Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 Ramasamy Solaisamy Income Tax Officer, No.9E, Chairman, Non-Corp., Npsn Arumugam Road, Circle-2, Sivakasi Viruthunagar, Madurai Tamil Nadu-626 123. [Pan: Acvps7427C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : None प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Sheila Parthasarthy, Addl.Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms.Sheila Parthasarthy, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

fireworks. During the year under consideration the assessee was noted to have purchased an immovable property for Rs.38,68,000/- as against the fair market value fixed by the stamp authority of Rs.1,26,52,500/-. Invoking the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) the Ld.AO made the addition ... Rs.87,84,500/-. Since, the assessee did not accept the fair market value fixed by the stamp authority he referred the case to the DVO for valuation. The Ld. First Appellate Authority recorded that he had issued several notices to the assessee but there was no compliance, consequently he dismissed