“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

V S Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-3(5), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2633/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 234DSection 250Section 270ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

provides that, where ‘any person’ [assessee, in this case] receives ‘any property’ [shares, in this case] without consideration, whose aggregate fair market value exceeds Rs.50,000/-, then the whole of the aggregate fair market value of such property is taxable as income under the head ‘Income from Other Sources ... aggregate value of such sum; (b) any immovable property,- …… (c) any property, other than immovable property,- (A) without consideration, the aggregate fair market value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the whole of the aggregate fair market value of such property; (B) for a consideration which is less than

Saritha Flavina Dsouza, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Mangalore

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

ITA 1363/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sanketh S Nayak, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 139Section 147Section 48

further observed that despite repeated opportunities, the assessee failed to produce the purchase deed of the . Page 4 of 10 property or the fair market value as on 01-04-2001, which was necessary to determine the cost of acquisition and its indexation. In the absence of these basic details ... After the death of the father, she inherited 25% right in the said property as legal heir. 10. The assessee claimed the fair market value of said property as on 1st April 2001 must be higher than original cost of acquisition of Rs. 3,42,100/- in which her share

Rashmi Seventilal Vakharia, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3801/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2018-19 Rashmi Seventilal Vakharia, Income Tax Officer, C-21, Malad Gaurav Co-Op. Ward-41(3)(3), Housing Society, Vs. Mumbai. Dahyabhai Patel Road, Hajibapu, Malad East, Mumbai-400097. Pan : Adgpv4261R (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Sunil Maloo (Virtually Present) For Revenue : Shri Annavaran Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 21-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-01-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Sunil MalooFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(x)

where the assessee disputes the adoption of the stamp duty valuation, the matter should have been referred to the DVO for determination of Fair Market Value and given that in the instant case, the matter has not been referred to DVO, the matter may be restored to the file ... raised any specific objection where the matter is remitted to the file of the AO for reference to the DVO for determination of fair market value. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessee has been consistent

Vikas Agarwal, Sambhal vs. Income Tax Officer, Sambhal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6268/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Saim, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

supra).” 3.2 With regards to the assessee’s second contention that the Ld. AO should have made reference to the DVO to determine fair market value of the land, Ld. CIT(A) observed that no such request was made by the assessee before the Ld. AO. Accordingly, appeal

Jayshree Narendra Amin, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2124/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2124/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Jayshree Narendra Amin The Ito बनाम/ 20, Kaushalya Bungalows Ward-1(1)(1) V/S. Opp. Karnavati Club Ahmedabad – 380 014 Ramdevnagar, Satellite Ahmedabad – 380 012 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abcpa 2934 N (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumbhare, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

appeal Form No.35 filed before the Ld. CIT(A). The issue before the Ld. CIT(A) was relating to the determination of fair market value u/s.56(2)(x) of the Act of the property purchased by the assessee. 3. A perusal of the impugned order

A.C..I.T. Circle-41(4)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Awadhnarayan Laxminarayan Singh, Mumbai

ITA 6227/MUM/2025[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan,(Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 150(1)

assessee before 1.04.1981 and therefore as per the provisions of Sec. 48 of the Act, the cost of acquisition is considered as fair market value as on 01.04.1981. And hence as per the order of CIT(A) dated 28.05.2014 and valuation report the index cost of acquisition comes

A.C.I.T. Circle-41(4)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Awadhnarayan Laxminarayan Singh, Mumbai

ITA 6226/MUM/2025[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan,(Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 150(1)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITO Ward - 20(3), New Delhi vs. Quetzal Exim Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department of Revenue is allowed

ITA 717/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 56Section 56(2)

addition u/s 56(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs.14,25,48,000/- on account of share allotment in excess of fair market value as determined under Rule 11UA(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.” 5. Learned Departmental Representative submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting ... 717/Del/ 2020 Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs.14,25,48,000/- on account of share allotment in excess of fair market value as determined under Rule 11UA(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Ld. AO for valid reasons had made the addition. 6. None appeared on behalf of assessee

Naresh Ahirwar, Bhopal vs. Income-Tax Officer, 5(3), Bhopal

In the result we are of the considered

ITA 242/IND/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshinaresh Ahirwar, Ito -1(2), बनाम/ Gram Badwani, New Jail Bhopal Vs. Road, Bypass Road, Tehsil Huzur, District Bhopal(M.P.) (Pan: Azopa9342A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Arpit Gaur, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 22.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 144Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 54B

Naresh Ahirwar ITA No. 242/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2012-13 Basis above it was also submitted that the Ld. AO should do correlation between cost of acquisition & fair market value. PB from pages 1 to 28 was placed on record including Page 7 of 11 Naresh Ahirwar ITA No. 242/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2012-13 additional paper book

Anshul Specialty Molecules Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7503/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaranshul Speciality Dcit Circle Molecules Private 1(1)(1), Mumbai Limited Vs. Aayakar Bhawani, Flexcel Park, „C‟ Wing, S.V. Mumbai-400 020 Road, Nr. 24 Karat Multiplex, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai- 400102 Pan/Gir No. Aabca4003H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri H. N. Motiwala, Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 22.01.2026

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270ASection 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)

unit for a lump sum consideration of Rs. 21,00,00,000/-. Against the said 6 Anshul Specialty Molecules Pvt Ltd consideration, the fair market value of land and building, as per valuation report, along with the book value of plant and machinery and other tangible assets, aggregating ... basis for a lump sum consideration of Rs. 21,00,00,000/-. The assessee allocated the consideration towards identifiable tangible assets based on fair market value and book values, and the residual 9 Anshul Specialty Molecules Pvt Ltd amount of Rs. 9,79,55,271/- was recognised as goodwill

Milan Theatres P Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 12(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5072/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 342Section 45(2)

previous year in which such stock-in-trade is sold or otherwise transferred, and for the purposes of section 48, the fair market value of the asset on the date of such conversion shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result

DCIT, CC-1(4), Kolkata vs. Jupiter International Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1678/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata ………….……………………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Jupiter International Limited..……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Unnayanam, 20A, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue, Kol-19.. [Pan: Aaacj6956B] Appearances By: Shri P. N Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Nandini Sureka, Advocate, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 197 Days & The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Going Over The Said Petition, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind The Delay & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

Rs.16,86,052/-. We note that the ld. AR has submitted that the Assessing Officer was of the view that while computing the Fair market value of equity shares, the assessee had taken into account Revaluation Reserve of Rs.23,10,13,765/- and if that is excluded then ... company has made allotment of 6,19,000 Equity Shares @ Rs. 42/- per share during the instant year at a price which exceeds fair market value of the share and thus the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act was violated. The fair market value on the basis

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1 1, Chennai vs. Fl Smith Private Limited, Kanchipuram

ITA 1763/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024 & Co No.71/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1731 & 1763/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Department By : Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate & Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O Rder : 15.12.2025 : 21.01.2026 Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”) Against Orders U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act') For The

For Respondent: Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate and

Section 143(3)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Corporate Circle 1-1, Chennai vs. Fl Smidth Private Limited, Kanchipuram

ITA 1731/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024 & Co No.71/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1731 & 1763/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Assessee By Department By : Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate & Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O Rder : 15.12.2025 : 21.01.2026 Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai (In Short "Ld.Cit(A)") Against Orders U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The 'Act') For The

For Respondent: Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate and

Section 143(3)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'डी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

Assisstant Commisioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1 1, Chennai vs. Fl Smith Private Limited, Kanchipuram

ITA 1682/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024 & Co No.71/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1731 & 1763/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Assessee By Department By : Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate & Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O Rder : 15.12.2025 : 21.01.2026 Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”) Against Orders U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act') For The

For Respondent: Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate and

Section 143(3)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

Jayashree Mukund Marathe, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 42(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2605/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethjayashree Mukund Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 42(2)(3), Marathe, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bldg. No. 8, Flat No. 9, Sachin Mumbai-400051. Chs, Mithagar Road, Mulund East, Mumbai-400081. Pan/Gir No: Abdpm3677K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Vipul Joshi Respondent By Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr Dr) Date Of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23.02.2026 O R D E R Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am:

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54Section 54(2)

provided u/s.54(2) before the date of furnishing the return of income u/s. 139. 2. The AO erred in not considering the fair market value of the property to be considered as cost of acquisition. 3. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, the AO erred in not considering

Rivet Health Club Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 2(2), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6182/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

same has been treated as unexplained sources of Income of the assessee and brought to tax under section 68 of the Act. Further fair market value as per Rule 11UA on the basis of Net Worth made the addition of Rs.26,39,050/- on the protective basis. Lastly the Assessing ... examine whether under these facts and circumstances Assessing Officer after invoking the deeming provision of Section 56(2)(vii) could have determined the fair market value of the premium on shares issued at Nil after rejecting the valuation report given by the Chartered Accountant on one of the prescribed methods

Radhika Jewellers, Rajkot vs. Dy.CIT 2 (1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 568/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Samir Jani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 45Section 45(3)

value of asset should be taken as per prevailing market rate as on 01.07.2014. The assessee has not filed any valuation report regarding fair market value as on date of transfer. Hence, assessing officer has taken market value of the said transferred asset as on 01.07.2014 at Rs. 3.25 crores ... value of asset should be taken as per prevailing market rate as on 01.07.2014. The assessee has not filed any valuation report regarding fair market value as on date of transfer. Hence, market value of the said transferred asset as on 01.07.2014 was taken at Rs. 3.25 crore

Maersk Tankers India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department, Mumbai

ITA 8376/MUM/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 92BSection 92B(2)Section 92C

statutory framework. 4.11 Without prejudice, the AR submitted that since the transaction was admittedly a slump sale taxable under section 50B, the fair market value determined under Rule 11UAE of the Income-tax Rules, which has been accepted by the Assessment Unit for capital gains purposes, ought to be adopted

Refiral Solutions Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Gurgaon

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 8306/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 8306/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Refiral Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, House No. 1789, Third Floor, Sector- Ward-3(5), 46, Gurgaon-122002 Gurgaon-1220088 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcr0604D Assessee By: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.01.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A), Kolkata’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1081746005(1) Dated 14.10.2025, In Proceedings U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 56(2)(viib)

consideration for issue of shares that exceeds the face value of such shares, the aggregate consideration received for such shares as exceeds the fair market value of the shares: Provided that this clause shall not apply where the consideration for issue of shares is received— (i) by a venture capital ... notified by the Central Government in this behalf. Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause,— 3 Refiral Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (a) the fair market value of the shares shall be the value— (i) as may be determined in accordance with such method as may be prescribed