“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

M/S. Avtec Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1009/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

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

M/S. India Housing., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-54, Kolkata

In the result, ITA Nos 1218 & 1219/KOL/2023 are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1218/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar & Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

expenditure incurred by the assessee for giving overall mall management supervision work to M/s. Sahara Prime City Ltd. was in excess of the fair market value of service or facility or was not as per legitimate needs of the business of the assessee. The maintenance of huge mall having area

Cotha Vinod Hayagriv, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 84/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Madhusudhan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 108ASection 132Section 153ASection 22Section 23(2)Section 250

month from his son. . ITA No.81 - 84/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 7 6. The AO was of the view that the fair market value (FMV) of the rent should have been ₹3,15,000/- per month, based on the historical rental income. Consequently, the AO recomputed the income from house property ... whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) to the Assessee's income, by imputing a notional rental income based on fair market value (FMV), is sustainable in light of the legal principles governing unabated assessments under Section 153A of the Income

Cotha Vinod Hayagriv, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 83/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Madhusudhan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 108ASection 153ASection 22Section 23(2)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

Cotha Vinod Hayagriv, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 82/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Madhusudhan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 108ASection 132Section 153ASection 22Section 23(2)Section 250

Cotha Vinod Hayagriv, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 81/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Madhusudhan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 108ASection 132Section 153ASection 22Section 23(2)Section 250

Naresh Jeramdas Idnani, Mumbai vs. ITO, Int Tax Ward-2(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1.1. to 1.3. raised by the Appellant are allowed while all the grounds raised by the Appellant are dismissed as having being rendered infructuous

ITA 3787/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarang Mehta / Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(7)Section 234D

Capital Asset’]. In the computation of Long Term Capital Gain, the appellant claimed Indexed Cost of Acquisition of INR.72,55.240/- by taking Fair Market Value of the Capital Asset as on 01/04/2081 at INR.6,71,160/- on the basis of valuation report obtained from a valuer. The Indexed Cost ... selected for scrutiny assessment. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer formed a view that the Cost of Acquisition, being Fair Market Value of the Capital Asset as on 01/04/1981, adopted by the Appellant was high and therefore, reference was made to the District Valuation Officer (DVO), Mumbai

ACIT Central Circle-1, Faridabad vs. Krishan Singla, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 8435/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 56(2)(viii)

allotted, in a colourable transaction, shares of M/s Confident Distributors Pvt Ltd at a discounted price of Rs 10/- per share against the fair market value of Rs 78.75 per share. The AO held that the assessee received shares having Fair Market Value

Hamaja Mohammed Malpekar, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ratnagiri Ward, Ratnagiri

ITA 264/PUN/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 194C

where the assessee claims before the AO that the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer; and (ii) the value so adopted or assessed or assessable by stamp valuation authority

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cirle 1, Kolhapur vs. Hamaja Mohammed Malpekar, Maharashtra

ITA 23/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 194C

G S Farm Taaza Produce Private Limited., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (OSD), Range-3(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1255/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri BS Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V Parithivel, JCIT (DR)

Section 154Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

method, as prescribed under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act read with Rule 11UA of Income Tax Rules, ultimately assigning a nil fair market value to the shares and disallowing the share premium of INR 3,04,42,500/- only treating as unexplained cash credit under section ... provided under clause (a) or clause (b) is available with assessee. Admittedly, the method adopted by the assessee i.e. DCF method for determining fair market value was one of the methods prescribed under the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) read with income tax rule 11UA of Income Tax Rule

Income Tax Officer Ward 20(2)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Jinendra Mahendrakumar Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4523/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Mehta, DR

Section 115BSection 69

details pertaining to the LTCG. The ld. AR further submitted that the valuation report was obtained by the assessee to substantiate that Fair Market Value (FMV) as on 01.04.2001 and the same has been claimed as cost of acquisition which is as per the provisions of the Income

Sandeep Sundar Bhoir, Dombivli. Maharashtra vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

ITA 5012/MUM/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rohit C. Kapure, ARFor Respondent: 21.11.2024

Section 2(14)Section 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

explanation given under section 56 clause (2) where in it is stated that: "Explanation.-For the purposes of this clause, the expressions "assessable", "fair market value", "jewellery", "property", "relative" and "stamp duty value" shall have the same meanings as respectively assigned to them in the Explanation to clause

Renu Singh, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2806/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarshri Vimal Kumar

Section 1Section 153C

from the Department the valuation report obtained by the AO from the Department Valuation Officer [“DVO”] Valuation Officer [“DVO”] itself indicate the fair market value of self indicate the fair market value of the property at INR the property at INR 1,68,59,788/- as against the transaction price ... Revenue Ld.CIT DR for the Revenue also submitted that report of DVO showing lesser ed that report of DVO showing lesser fair market value as not bearing in the instant case where the assessee and the as not bearing in the instant case where the assessee

Anilkumar Dwarkaprasad Modani, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1)(Previously Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)), Vadodara

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

ITA 1572/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1572/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Anilkumar Dwarkaprasad Modani The Dy.Cit बनाम/ A-17, Videocon Housing Colony Circle-2(1)(1) V/S. Chavaj, Bharuch 392 002 Vadodara (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Acnpm 0273 C अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hemant Suthar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26/12/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, In Which The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao)”] Under Section 50C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] Was Confirmed Vide Assessment Order Dated 28/03/2016. Facts Of The Case: 2. The Assessee, An Individual Earning Income From Salaries, Trading In Shares & Securities, Capital Gains & Other Sources, Filed His Return Of Anilkumar Dwarkaprasad Modani Vs. The Dcit Asst. Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

assessment time limit. In the absence of the DVO report, the reliance on stamp duty valuation was unjustified and did not reflect the fair market value of the properties. Despite these submissions, the CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the AO, concluding that the reliance on the stamp duty ... assessee to request a reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO), if they believe that the stamp duty valuation does not reflect the fair market value of the property. 8.4. In the present case, the assessee disputed the stamp duty valuation and invoked the right under Section

Parasmani Gems Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Cir-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2263/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2263/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) बनाम/ Parasmani Gems Pvt. Ltd. The D.C.I.T. 2, Supan Complex, Nr. Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. Dharnidhar Derasar, Paldi, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 380006 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcp6337M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul K Patel, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/10/2024 21/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 234ASection 56(2)(viib)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). It was explained that the shares allotted on 03.11.2012 were on the basis of fair market value (FMV) of the shares as determined under Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method, in support of which a report of the Accountant was filed. However ... this provisions is applicable to the considerations received in the previous year under consideration for taxing the excess premium charged over and above fair market value of shares determined as per prescribed method under Rule 11UA. In the current facts of the case, the appellant did not receive any consideration

3A Composites India Private Limied, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4096/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 43(6)Section 50C

amount deemed to be received on the sale of the immovable property in case the transfer value is less than the fair market value. The ld. CIT(A) also relied on the decision in the case of ITO vs. United Marine Academy [2011] 130 ITD 113 (Mum), wherein for computing

Max Hospitals and Allied Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai -3, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2907/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2018-19 Max Hospitals & Principal Allied Services Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor, Income Tax Mumbai- 3 Man Excellenza, Room No.612, Vs. S. V. Road, 6Th Floor, Vile Parle (W.), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400056 Maharishi Karve Road, Pan: Aagcr9198D Mumbai- 400020. Appellant : Respondent

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogia Nagpal (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(viib)

Capital Advisors Private Limited). iii) For AY 2018-19 Spa Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd. has vide its valuation report dt. 11/10/2017 certified the fair market value of the shares of the Company as on that date at Rs. 39.58/- per equity share. The assessee has allotted shares at fair market ... consolidated financial projections of the assessee including of Dr. Balabhai Nanavati's figures as well up to March, 2030, hence while calculating fair market value the Merchant Banker has considered projected financials of the assessee including of Dr. Balabhai Nanavati's figures as well. However, the Ld. AO failed

Sills Karingattil Jose, Nedumkandom vs. ITO Ward 2, Thodupuzha

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 132/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhsils Karingattil Jose Income Tax Officer Np 3/406, Karingattil Ward - 2, House, Munnar Road Thodupuzha Vs. Nedumkandom P.O. [Pan: Afopj8789C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R

Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(V)Section 250Section 50CSection 53ASection 56(2)(vii)

Wherein the appellant received 510000 unquoted shares of M/s. Anson Fincorp Pvt. Ltd. at Rs. 10 per share. The Assessing Officer took the fair market value of Rs. 12.29 per share as per NAV method and initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act for the difference ... October, 2009 but before the 1st day of April, 2017,— . . . c) any property, other than immovable property,— (i) without consideration, the aggregate fair market value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the whole of the aggregate fair market value of such property ; (ii) for a consideration which is less than

Assitant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -1(1), Nagpur vs. Suresh Gokuldas Bajaj, Nagpur

ITA 2/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69Section 69A

made by the AO u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the IT Act 1961, being assessee's share of difference in the fair market value of property and sale consideration paid.” 3. Facts in Brief:– The assessee was engaged in the business of civil construction i.e., road, dam, bridges ... price of ` 23,94,742, and also paid stamp duty of ` 34,40,000, on 14/01/2015, whereas, according to the Assessing Officer, the fair market value of the property was ` 5,29,20,000. The assessee, in response to the notices issued under section 148 of the Act on 11/03/2021