“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

Dharmesh Ramesh Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. The Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit Faceless Assessments, Delhi

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

ITA 5472/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2017-18 Dharmesh Ramesh Jhaveri, The Asst./Dy. Commissioner Of 1 & 2,Bhagyodaya Building, Income Tax, Sarojini Road, Vs. Circle-2(2)(1), Vile Parle (West), Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Mumbai. Aayakar Bhavan, Pan : Aacpj6530G M.K. Road, Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Lalchand Choudhary, For Revenue : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-12-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04-12-2024 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran, A.M : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dt. 28-08- 2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟] & It Relates To Ay. 2017-18. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Decision Of The Ld.Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50.06 Lakhs Made By The Ao U/S. 56(2)(Vii)(B)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟).

For Appellant: Shri Lalchand ChoudharyFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.DR

Section 56(2)(vii)

assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition. Hence, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The Ld.AR submitted thatthe Fair Market Value (FMV) as on the date of allotment of the flat was lower than the purchase consideration and further, the assessee has paid

Rakesh Fatechand Jain, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit (National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2795/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 Mr. Rakesh Fatechand Jain Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, National Shop No. 140, Kherwadi Market, Vs E-Assessment Centre, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051. Delhi Pan: Afjpj 0418 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kunal D. LunawatFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

market value of the immovable property, therefore, requested that the matter may be referred to the Departmental Valuation Officer for determining the fair market value of the property. The assessing officer has referred the matter to the DVO u/s 50C(2) of the Act to determine the fair market value ... received the valuation report from DVO and the long term capital gain on the sale of the property was computed as per the fair market value of the property determined by the stamp value authority. Accordingly, the long term capital gain was determined at Rs. 58,98,500/- after reducing

Sh. Surinder Kumar, Rajpura vs. ACIT, Circle, Patiala

In the result, all the three captioned appeals are allowed

ITA 435/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 433 /Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 बनाम Shri Mohinder Kumar, The Acit, #371, Dalima Vihar, Circle, Rajpaura 140401 Patiala Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aenpk2131D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133ASection 54BSection 69

relevant part of the order of the CIT(A) to submit that in relation to the issue of as to what was the fair market value of the Simran Dhaba at the time of the exchange deed which was taken as sale consideration of the properties / land transferred ... said value in the computation at Rs. 3.42 Crores, however, the matter was referred the to the Departmental Valuation officer who estimated the fair market value of the property at Rs. 3,89,41,260/-. The A.O. in the 433 to 435 -Chd-2024 Mohinder Singh, Rajpura & Ors, Rajpura

Sh. Pawan Kumar, Rajpura vs. ACIT, Circle, Patiala

In the result, all the three captioned appeals are allowed

ITA 434/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133ASection 54BSection 69

Sh. Mohinder Kumar, Rajpura vs. ACIT, Circle, Patiala

In the result, all the three captioned appeals are allowed

ITA 433/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133ASection 54BSection 69

Zahid Hasan Khan, Yamuna Nagar vs. ITO, Ward -5, Yamuna Nagar

In the result, ground no. 4 of the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 122/CHANDI/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250Section 54BSection 54F

assessee’s land is as Km he value of land as on 01.04.1981, the AO stated that the information has been sought regarding Fair Market Value (FMY) of land during the year 1981-82 from Sub Registrar, Jagadhri who has in turn supplied copy of two sale deeds ... submitted that broadly two issues are involved in the present case. Firstly, the incorrect computation of cost of acquisition by way of fair market value of land as on 01/04/1981 and secondly, denial of claim of deduction under section 54B of the Act. In this regard, it was submitted that

Income Tax Officer, Main Building vs. Priya Estate Developers Private Limited, Abhiramapuram, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1244/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1244/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ito M/S. Priya Estate Developers Private Ltd. बनाम/ Corporate Ward-5(2) #11, Bashyam Basheer Ahmed Road Vs. Chennai. Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Pan No. Aahcp-5405-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) – Ld. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) -Ld. Ar (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) -Ld. AR

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

Sasikala Raghupati at a premium of Rs.36,990/- per share. The assessee submitted that the shares were allotted as per the fair market value (FMV) computed in accordance with Sec.56(2)(viib) read with Rule 11U / 11UA. In support of the same, the assessee furnished valuation report dated ... assessee was directed to furnish both the valuation report to Ld. AO and Ld. AO was directed to examine the same and adopt fair market value as per these two reports in terms of Sec.56(2)(vii)(b) r.w.r. 11UA. The AO was further directed to compute the difference between

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Banas Builders and Developers LLP, Jhalawar

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 269/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Jain (Adv.) (V.C)For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.H)

Section 153ASection 250Section 69B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Banas Minerals Private Limited, Jhalawar

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 240/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Jain (Adv.) (V.C)For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.H)

Section 153ASection 250Section 69B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

ACIT, Central Circle, Kota vs. Banas Minerals Private Limited, Jhalawar

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 239/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Jain (Adv.) (V.C)For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.H)

Section 153ASection 250Section 69B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Dow Chemical International Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -14(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal are allowed

ITA 5446/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B R Baskaran: A.Y. : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 43(1)

India) Pvt. Ltd. (RHIPL) with the appellant, all the assets and liabilities of RHIPL were transferred to the appellant. The difference between the fair market value of the assets transferred and the consideration paid was recognized as intangibles in form of (i) goodwill, (ii) distribution network and (iii) customer relations

Income Tax Officer WD-4(3)Kol, Aayakar Bhawan Chowringhee Square vs. Acuity Merchants Private Limited, B G Sarani Sonarpur Kolkata

ITA 1457/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

assessee complied with the said notices by filing the details / evidences as called for by the AO and also submitted the calculation of fair market value of the assessee as on 31.03.2017 as per Rule 11UA. The AO from the details filed by the assessee noted that the asse issued

Spl Infrastructure Pvt. Lt, Alwarpet, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai

ITA 325/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.325/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Spl Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 15, Kasturi Rangan Road, Corporate Circle – 6(1), Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [Pan: Aaics0881N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.03.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Raised 11 Grounds Of Appeal. The Ld. Ar Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate, Drew Our Attention To Ground No. 11 & Submits That This Matter Requires To Be Remanded To The File Of The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

being the difference between the value of shares shown by the assessee and as determined by the Assessing Officer, as excess fair market value, which is clear from page 5 of the assessment order. Therefore, we find no force in the argument of the ld. AR that no opportunity ... including at a premium of ₹.140/- per share for an amount of ₹.4,75,50,000/-. The Assessing Officer reproduced the computation of fair market value shown by the assessee in page 2 & 3 of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer did not accept the said computation of the fair

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Nanikram Menghraj Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3162/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriito V/S. Nanikram Menghraj Trust Room No.618, Mtnl बनाम 113, 114 Navjivan, Building, Cumbala Hill, Commercial Building No.3, Peddar Road, Lamington Road, Maharashtra-400026 Mumbai Central, Maharashtra-400008 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatn2215N Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel &For Respondent: Shri Anurag Tripathi

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

vide order dated 10.05.2010 granted sanction for transfer of property for a consideration of Rs. 15,25,00,000/- after considering the prevailing fair market value of the property. It was claimed by the Ld. AR that even if the provisions of section 50C are to be applied, the stamp ... decision of the co-ordinate bench, we hold that the price determined by the Charity Commissioner has to be adopted as the fair market value as both the parties are bound by the order of Charity Commissioner. Therefore, there is no reason to invoke the provisions of section

Avtec Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (Ltu), Circle-1, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7366/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashypa, Sr. DR

Section 10ASection 115JSection 234BSection 80I

decision of Wipro Ltd ITA no 1349/Bang/2010, relied upon by the assessee, we remit this issue back to the AO for ascertaining the fair market value of such goods transferred to and from the MEPZ unit to arrive at the profit of the eligible unit. The ground