← 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

Farhana Mushtaq Begum, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 30(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2720/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhrifarhana Mushtaq Vs. Ito, Ward – 30(1)(3) C-13, 5Th Floor, Begum Pratyakshar Bhavan, Plot No. 373, Poonam Bandra (E), Mumbai. Nagar, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 093. Pan/Gir No. Aubpb4014C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By Mr. Mohammed Shahab Khan, Adv Respondent By Ms.Jancy Elizabeth Rani. Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 25.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2024 Order Per Renu Jauhri, Am: “ The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-55, Mumbai (In Short “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 55, Mumbai Seriously Erred In Law & On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, In Confirming The Impugned

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 50C(2)Section 50C(3)

Valuation Officer) on reference by the Ld Assessing Officer resulting in the Valuation Report dated 14/09/2023 vide No. VO-1/MUM/CGT/2023-24/576 determining the Fair Market Value of the Property to be Rs. 49,28,000/- stands to be the Stamp Duty Value of the said Capital Asset. 2. The brief ... directed the AO to refer the valuation of flat to the District Valuation Officer (in short “DVO”) for determining fair market value (in short “FMV”) in terms of Sec. 50C(2) of the Act. The valuation by the DVO was done at Rs. 49,28,000/- and disregarded the valuation

The JCIT (OSD), Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Magnet Buildtech P. Ltd, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 489/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.489/Ahd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Jcit (Osd) M/S. Magnet Buildtech Pvt.Ltd. Circle-2(1)(1) बनाम/ 906-907, Indraprasth Corporate Ahmedabad Opp. Venus Atlantis V/S. Anand Nagar Road Ahmedabad – 380 015 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaicm 4158 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi & Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, Ars Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 09/07/2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” In Short] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 11/12/2018 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Jcit (Osd) Vs. M/S.Magnet Buildtech Pvt.Ltd. Asst. Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi &For Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

provisions of Rule 11UA(1)(c)(c) and Rule 11UA(2) it was submitted that the Legislature has provided different methods for computing fair market value' of 'unquoted equity shares' and unquoted shares other than the equity shares' and so far Appellant's case is concerned, the fair market value ... Buildtech Pvt.Ltd. Asst. Year : 2016-17 submitted that as far as Rule 11UA (2) is concerned, firstly, this Rule is for computing the fair market value' of 'unquoted equity shares' and secondly, Rule has given option to the Assessee to compute the value in accordance with Rule 11UA

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Sunedison Solar Power India Private Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 1028/CHNY/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1028/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sunedison Solar Power India Private Corporate Ward 6(1), Room No. 704, Limited, No. 6J, Century Plaza,560- Wanaparthy Block, Aayakar Bhawan, 565, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 040 Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aascs6905K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S.K. Gupta, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of Four Days. The Revenue Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Explaining Reasons For The Said Delay & Prayed For Condonation Of That Delay. On Perusal Of The Condonation Petition & Upon Hearing Both The Parties, We Find That The 2

For Appellant: Shri Aroon Prasad, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Gupta, Advocate
Section 144BSection 147Section 260A

asset, which is required to be accounted for when a purchaser acquires a business as a going concern by paying more than the fair market value of the net tangible assets, that is, assets less liabilities. The difference in the purchase consideration and the net value of assets and liabilities