“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

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

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

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

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

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

Raghu Rama Renewable Energy Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 875/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Section 145(2)Section 250

assessee has valued the closing stock and claimed impairment loss of Rs. 2,40,16,579/- by considering the present saleable value or fair market value of the stock-in-trade. The assessee has claimed 14% reduction in value due to effluxion of time and reduction in moisture content

Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), Delhi vs. Gold Souk Finance Private Limited, Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5827/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalito, Ward-10(1) Vs. Gold Souk Finance Private Room No. G-11A, Ground Limited, Plot No. 1, Floor, C.R. Building, Local Shopping Centre Ip Estate Sharda Niketan, Pitampura New Delhi – 110002 Delhi – 110034 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaecg4594J Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeshwar Painuly, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(iia)

deleted the addition made by Assessing Officer u/s 56(2)(iia) of the Act on account of difference in fair market value of shares of companies against purchase cost shown by the assessee. P a g e | 3 Gold Souk Finance ... department asserts that relief has been granted without verifying fair market value of shares submitted by assessee during appellate proceedings and ld. DR has relied the provisions of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules 1962 to submit that additional evidences were admitted without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity

Devyani Deepak Rawtal, Nagpur vs. ITO(It&Tp) Bhopal, Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 129/IND/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Feb 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

submitted that the purpose of section 56(2)(vii)(b) is to curb tax evasion by payment of money over and above fair market value but in the facts of present case, there is no question of any tax evasion since the purchase itself is made from a reputed listed ... assessee would request your goodself to kindly refer the valuation to a Valuation Officer instead of considering the Stamp Duty Value as fair market value as per Sec 50C.” 11. Thereafter, Ld. AR submitted that the Stamps Authority Valuation is based on a static price notified by Stamps Department

M/S Credo Assets Pvt. Ltd., Rupnagar Punjab vs. DCIT/ACIT(Cen)-1 Chd, Chandigarh

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 484/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.487/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-6503-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.482/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.484/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Credo Assets Private Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265-C, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-6400-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs (Virtual) Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) & Shri Rajat Kumar

Section 127Section 132Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 69ASection 69B

Assessing Officer may, for the purposes of assessment or reassessment, make a reference to a Valuation Officer to estimate the value, including fair market value, of any ‘asset’, ‘property’ or ‘investment’ and submit a copy of report to him. However, the alleged unaccounted expenditure does not fit into ... Assessing Officer may, for the purposes of assessment or reassessment, make a reference to a Valuation Officer to estimate the value, including fair market value, of any asset, property or investment and submit a copy of report to him. (2) The Assessing Officer may make a reference to the Valuation

Ragini Bhadauria, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 49(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 9134/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 9134/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Ragini Bhadauria, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Sunila Chanana, Ca, Ward-49(1), New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Amhpb7637F Assessee By: Sh. S. Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.02.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1083905805(1) Dated 19.12.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. S. Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 56(2)(vii)

proviso(es) make it clear that such a payment made through specified channel is to be treated as the fair market value of the asset in question which squarely applies in the assessee’s favour. I accordingly delete the impugned addition of Rs.13,44,519/- in very terms. 5. This

Kandavara Abdul Basheer, Mangaluru vs. ITO Intl Tax Ward Mangalore, Mangaluru

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2249/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Kandavara Abdul Basheer, 1-224, Zohara Manszil, The Income Tax Officer, Church Road, Kandavara, International Tax Ward, Kinnikambla D.K., Mangalore, Vs. Mangalore. Karnataka – 574 151. Pan: Avepb7561Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, CA

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194Section 56(2)(vii)

made the addition. Further, he found that purchase consideration of the immovable property of Rs. 55,00,000/- is the fair market value as per the stamp duty rate of Rs. 57,90,000/- and therefore the difference of Rs 2,90,000/- is required to be made

Sanjeev Kumar Saxena, Lucknow vs. ITO-3(4), Lucknow -New, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 99/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

dispute that the assessee requested the Assessing Officer to make a reference to Departmental Valuation Officer (“D.V.O.” for short) for determination of fair market value of the property. It is also not in dispute that the Assessing Officer did not make a reference to D.V.O. despite specific request made ... records. It is not in dispute that vide letter dated 11/11/2021, the assessee requested for reference to Valuation Officer for determination of fair market value of the property purchased by the assessee and the property sold by the assessee. The provisions of Section 50C(2) of the Act as well

Chhedi Lal, Raebareli vs. Income Tax Officer, Raebareli

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

ITA 87/LKW/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: the Assessing Officer and furnished submissions. After considering the submissions and making necessary enquiries, the Assessing Officer adopted the stamp duty valuation u/s 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“Act” for short) and assessed the total income at Rs.31,95,000/. Aggrieved by this, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, thereby directed the Assessing Officer to consider the value of new residence of property at Rs.8,97,0

For Appellant: Shri A. P. Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 159Section 50C

considered as a mercy petition. It was contended that the report of the District Valuation Officer (DVO) is not based on the fair market value prevailing at the relevant point of time and that the DVO has also failed to take into consideration comparable instances of sale

Janardan Namdev Gawali, Ambarnath vs. ITO Ward2(2) Kalyan, Kalyan

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

ITA 8245/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawaljanardan Namdev Gawali Palegaon, Anandnagar, Ambarnath Thane, Kalyan - Dombivali Maharashtra - 421502 ............... Appellant Pan: Apgpg9048B V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), J-63/12 Addl., Murbad Rani Mansion ……………… Respondent Industrial Area Midc, 2Nd Floor Murbad Road Kalyan, Kalyan – Dombivali Maharashtra – 421301 Assessee By : Ms. Mamta Watwani Revenue By : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Mamta WatwaniFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250

Making the addition without considering the submission regarding the cost of acquisition of the subject plot; b. Disallowing the deduction towards the fair market value of the said plot as on 01.04.1981, despite the fact that the plot was inherited by the assessee from his ancestors prior to 01.04.1981, thereby ... cost of acquisition and in treating the cost as 'Nill, without affording adequate opportunity or accepting the appellant's request to adopt the Fair Market Value (FMV) as on 01.04.1981, despite the land being held since prior to that date. 4 5. That the reassessment proceedings initiated under section

Zahida Bano Mohammad Yusuf Shaikh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(4)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 8244/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalzahida Bano Mohammad Yusuf Shaikh A/10 Jai Hind Society, Asalpha Gahtkopar Link, Ro Mohili Village Sakinaka, Mumbai - 400072 ............... Appellant Pan: Buups3134C V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-41(4)(4), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ……………… Respondent Mumbai – 400020

For Appellant: Ms. Shama Mohd. Ismail Patel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Assessing Officer that the value adopted or assessed 16[or assessable] by the stamp valuation authority under sub- section (1) exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer; (b) the value so adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority under

Jora Ram Mali, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(2)Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 7647/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 153CSection 292CSection 65BSection 69

stamp duty valuation. This clearly establishes that the appellant has disclosed the full consideration and that the transaction is bona fide and at fair market value. 3. At the very outset Ld. AR submitted that the grounds in question raised by the assessee are squarely covered by the series

Jora Ram Mali, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(2)Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 7646/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 153CSection 292CSection 65BSection 69

Aero Pack Products Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the manner indicated above

ITA 6697/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

thereof, a reference was made on 16.12.2024, and the DVO, after conducting the requisite valuation exercise, submitted his report dated 28.10.2025, determining the fair market value of the property at ₹2,99,03,000/-. 3 Aero Pack Products Private Limited 5. It is an undisputed position that the said ... careful examination of the DVO’s report, it is evident that the difference between the consideration paid by the assessee and the fair market value determined by the DVO works out to only about 5.77%. The statutory scheme governing section 56(2)(x), read with the third proviso thereto, clearly

Kovalam Resort Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 6580/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6580/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No. 6578/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No. 6579/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Kovalam Resort Private Dcit 2(1)(1), Limited 561, Aayakar The Leela, Sahar, Andheri Vs. Bhavan, M. K. East, Mumbai-400 059 Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaeck4804H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dharan Gandi & Shri Ravi Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

purchaser in a slump sale. The assessee further submitted that in a slump sale, the excess consideration paid over and above the fair market value of tangible assets represented goodwill and depreciation was allowable thereon under section 32 of the Act in view of the judgment ... valuation reports and the assessee had failed to demonstrate with cogent evidence that the values adopted by it correctly reflected the fair market value of the respective assets. 22. The learned CIT(A) held that land could not be valued at the figure adopted by the assessee, as the assessee

Kovalam Resort Private Limtied, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 6579/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Kovalam Resort Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6578/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Kundan Jayantilal Bhatt, Mumbai vs. ITO, Circle 4, Thane

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

ITA 6522/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarkundan Jayantilal Bhatt Ito Cirlce-4, 277, Kundan Bunglow Room No. 2, Ashar Behind Yashwant Heights, Vs. It Park, 6Th Floor, Opp. Vidyavihar School, Road No. 16Z, Virar (West), Shivansai, Wagle Industrial Thane, Maharashtra – Estate, Thane, 401 303 Maharashtra- 400604 Pan/Gir No. Adjpb4878K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ravi Gupta, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

Section 142ASection 142A(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 56(2)(vii)

response, the assessee requested vide letter dated 18.12.2018 that the matter be referred to the District Valuation Officer for determination of the fair market value of the property. Accordingly, a reference was made to the District Valuation Officer on 19.12.2018. 3 Kundan Jayantilal Bhatt 5. The Assessing Officer recorded that ... that the Assessing Officer made a reference to the District Valuation Officer under section 142A of the Act on 19.12.2018 for determining the fair market value of the property purchased by the assessee. It is also not in dispute that no valuation report was received from the District Valuation Officer

K. G. Finvest Private Limited, East Delhi vs. Central Circle 29, Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4330/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2015-16] K.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd. Vs Central Circle-29, F-24 F/Floor, I.Sc Pankaj Delhi Central Market, Mandawali Fazalpur, Nr Natraj Vihar Society, I.P. Extn., New Delhi- 110092. Pan-Aaack4032H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sudesh Garg, Adv. & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Respondent By Shri Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29 .01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.06.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-30, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-5/10256/2017-18 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Company Has Filed Its Return Of Income On 28.09.2015, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 5,09,130/-. The Case Was Selected Under Limited Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Followed By Statutory Notices Issued U/S 142(1) Were Issued From Time To Time. In Response, Assessee Filed Submissions & Relevant Details Alongwith Evidences. The Ao Observed That The Assessee Issued 8,40,000 Equity Shares Of Inr 10/- Each At A Premium Of Inr 490/- Each & The Valuation Of Shares Was Done By Following Dcf Method. However, The Ao Rejected The Method Of Valuation Of Share Adopted By The Assessee & Re-Computed The Value Per Share At Inr 50.35 Per Share As Per Nav Method & Made Addition Of Differential Amount Of Inr 37,77,06,000/- U/S 56(2)(Viib) Of The Act.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

facts and in law in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO u/s 56(2) (viib) of the Act by rejecting the fair market value of share as computed by the appellant using DCF method ignoring the settled law in this regard including by orders ... method for valuation of its share as provided in clause (b) of Rule 11UA(2) of the Rules and determined the fair market value of INR 500/- per share as per the report of merchant banker under DCF method. Ld.AR further submits that the valuer has worked out the value

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Gaurav Dalmia, Delhi

In the result, additional ground 1 under Rule 27 of the assessee is

ITA 4162/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69A

share at which shares of Landmark Hi Tech Development Private Limited have been sold by Landmark Realtech Pvt Ltd is above the fair market value of share worked out as per Page 15 of 30 ITA No.4162/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2016-17] The Dy. C.I.T. Vs. Gaurav Dalmia section 56(2)(viia

Bansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust, Pune vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1357/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Bansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust Cit (Exemption), 251, Budhwar Peth, City Post Chowk, Vs. Pune Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaatb4383K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, V.P:

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

mandates that the authority must establish that the payment is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value. However, the Ld. CIT(Exemption) in the instant case has not identified any excessive portion, has not quantified any unreasonable benefit and not compared the payments with market rates ... instant case has not established that the payment made to the specified persons is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value. He has not identified any excessive portion nor quantified unreasonable benefit nor compared the payments to market rates. In absence of 34 such findings, invocation