← 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

Go Fashion (India) Limited, Nungambakkam, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai-1, Nungambakkam Chennai

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

ITA 939/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.939/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Go Fashion (India) Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of 4 (Old 144), Sathak Center, Vs. Income Tax, Fifth Floor, Chennai-1. Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam S.O, Nungabakkam, Chennai-600034. [Pan: Aadcg 9557C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Ramachandran, Fca Hiथ" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M : Aforesaid Appeal Filed By The Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-1 [Hereinafter “Pcit”] Dated 29.02.2024 Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramachandran, FCA
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

DCIT in (2023] 151 taxmann.com 484, where in the variation not exceeding 10% in the valuation price, is deemed to be the fair market value. The action of the Ld. PCIT was wholly unreasonable, uncalled for and bad in law. 7. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend. alter vary ... contributed by ICICI venture through India Advantage Fund S4-I. The shares were issued at price of Rs. 416.69 per share against the Fair Market Value of share of Rs. 414. The Assessing Officer in assess passed under section 143(3) after verification has not made any addition

Lakshmi Prasunamba Kodali, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle International Tax, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 279/VIZ/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 279/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Lakshmi Prasunamba Kodali, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Pan: Cxrpk7177G Circle-International Tax, Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri S.V. Rao Associates ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 25/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri S.V. Rao AssociatesFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 270A

4/4/2022. The report furnished is as under……. ……. ……. ……. 6.8. Vide the above report, the District Valuation Officer, Income Tax Department, Hyderabad, has estimated the fair market value ofa the said property in respect of the property at H.No. 8-2-593/82/A/133, Plot No. 133, Survey No. 403/1 ... worked at Rs. 79,50,560/-. In the light of the above, the AO, is directed to adopt the fair market value of the land at Rs. 6320/- per sq yds for the 1258 sq yds and recalculate the value of the property. Since the AO has adopted the building

Sannidhi Sri Ramachandra Murthy (HUF), Rajahmundry vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 230/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 230/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sannidhi Sriramachandra Murthy (Huf) V. The Assistant Commissioner Of D.No. 42-10-30/31 Income Tax, Circle-1 Income Tax Office, Aayakar Bhavan Sree Ramachandra Murthy Nilayam Veerabhadrapuram Mangalavarapu Peta Rajahmundry-533105 Rajahmundry – 533101 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaxhs4350L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व / Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasaai Rath, Cit(Dr)

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 45(2)Section 54BSection 54ESection 54F

year 2012-13 for a sale consideration of Rs.2,00,49,030/-. Ld.Pr.CIT observed that as per Sec.45(2) of the Act, the fair market value of the asset on the date of such conversion i.e., 10.03.2010 shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received ... trade on 10.03.2010 which was subsequently sold during the financial Year 2012-13. The Ld.AR further submitted that assessee has considered the fair market value as on the date of conversion for the purpose of computation of capital gains and treated the consideration received from the date of conversion

Shabbir Bengali, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 37(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1503/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Sept 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1503/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shabbir Bengali…………..…….…....…………….......…....………....Appellant C/O Sri Jitendra Kaushik, Advocate, 19D, Muktaram Babu Street, Kolkata – 700007. [Pan: Aijpb4101G] Vs. Ito, Ward-37(1), Kolkata.......................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 24, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.07.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Sole Issue Raised In This Appeal Is Relating To The Addition Made By The Lower Authorities U/S 50C Of The Act On Account Of Difference Between Collector Rate As Compared To Sale Consideration Mentioned In The Sale Deeds In Respect Of Property Sold By The Assessee Along With Others, Wherein, The Assessee Had Share Of 11.277%. 3. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Disputed The Purchase Value/Market Value Of The Property As On 01.04.1981

Section 250Section 50C

value taken by the assessee at Rs.1,51,94,000/- as per report of the Registered Valuer. The Assessing Officer took the fair market value as on the date of sale at Rs.12,25,41,968/-. The Assessing Officer, thereafter, calculated the capital gains taking the purchase value/acquisition value ... settled law, the Assessing Officer at the time of referring the matter to the DVO was also supposed to get the fair market value of the property as on the date of sale also. He has further referred to the report of the DVO in case of co-sharer, wherein