“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

Vinay Konchady Shenoy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 455/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh .C, CA

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 54Section 55A

authorities, before concluding the Capital Gain calculation. 3. The CIT (A) and CPC have erred in not referring the matter for determination of Fair Market Value to the Valuation officer according to provisions u/s 55A of the I.T. Act and proceeding to compute the Long Term Capital Gains adopting alleged

Maa Chintpoorni Tie-Up Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O, Ward-1(2), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 541/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Himadri Mukhopadhyay, Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

genuine or not. For that, Ld. Commissioner of income Tax (Appeal) should have considered that the available balance sheet and valuation report of fair market value of the share has already been in the file of the assessing officer. Therefore, completion of appeal without consulting the assessment record ... Commissioner of income Tax (Appeal) should have considered the fact that at the point of time when the share was purchased the fair market value of the share has shown by the assessee/appellant is supported by the certificate of Chartered Accountant as per prescribed format under rule

Maa Chintpoorni Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-1(2), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 540/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Himadri Mukhopadhyay, Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

Naresh Vasantrai Trivedi, Nagpur vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 108/NAG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

same deserves to be ignored for calculation of capital gains in the interest of justice. 5) Under any case, the fair market value of the Flat sold being the price at which the property has been sold by the Appellant, the valuation under section 50C deserves to be ignored

Naresh Vasantrai Trivedi, Nagpur vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 107/NAG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

Naresh Vasantrai Trivedi, Nagpur vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 106/NAG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

Naresh Vasantraj Trivedi, Nagpur vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 105/NAG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

M/S Jyoti Vidyapeeth Trust, 143, Gomez Defence Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur vs. Circle (Exemption), Jaipur

Appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 329/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 12ASection 13Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

seen viz-a-viz the legitimate needs of the assessee, benefit derived that accrued to the assessee as well as fair market value of such service. 42. In Heritage Educational Society case (supra), Hon’ble ITAT Bench at Chandigarh observed that the assessee society had explained that the specified persons

M/S Jyoti Vidyapeeth Trust, Jaipur vs. Circle (Exemption) Jaipur, Jaipur

Appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 328/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 12ASection 13Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Arvindsinh Ishvarsinh Vaghela, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Mehsana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 420/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 248(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 548

jantri rates came into force from 18.04.2021 or in the alternative, the AO ought to have referred the fair market value on the date of execution of banakhat to DVO as per Sec. 50C(2). It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal filed by the appellant before NFAC

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle-1, Bengaluru vs. K J Foundation, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1105/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assistant Commissionerof K.J. Foundation Income Tax 58/1 Thubarahalli Room No. 606, 6Th Floor Behind Sriram, Samruthi Vs. Unity Bldg. Annex Apartments, Whitefield Road P. Kalinga Rao Road Karnataka 500067 Karnataka 560027 Pan – Aabtk1178N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satish R. Mody, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Vilas V. Shinde, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K., J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (‘Cit(A)’) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1 The Order Of Learned Cit(A) Is Opposed To Facts & Circumstances Of The Case 2 The Cit(A) Has Erred In Observing That During The F.Y 2016- 17, The Assessee Had Paid Lease Rent Of Rs.9,58,28,710/-Only To Eduspark International Pvt. Ltd. Which Was A Specified Person U/S.13(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & That Such Payment

For Appellant: Shri Satish R. Mody, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vilas V. Shinde, CIT-DR

Section 13Section 13(3)Section 250

EIPL is unreasonable or excessive and not at arm's length price. 3. No effort was made by the AO to ascertain the fair market value of properties leased to the appellant trust by M/s EIPL. AO has not referred or obtained any valuation report from the DVO to ascertain ... Grover Vs Vertex Trading Company, the Hon'ble Bombay Hight Court has taken the similar view. Therefore, it can be said that the fair market value determined by the approved valuer is correct and genuineness of the same cannot be doubted. 5.10In the case of Shri Ramdoot Prasad Seva

ACIT Central Circle, Meerut vs. Dr. Leena Chaudhary, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1350/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Acit Vs. Dr. Leena Chaudhary Central Circle A-43/A, Defence Colony, Meerut Meerut -250001 Pan No.Acrpp0653M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. P.S. Kashyap, Ca Date Of Hearing: 16/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/06/2024 Order

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69BSection 69C

unexplained investment u/s 69B of the I.T. Act by observing that the valuation of the property done by the DVO and estimated fair market value cannot be the sole basis of addition u/s 69B of the 1.T. Act without appreciating that the fair market value of the land ... addition. He submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred to observed that valuation of the property done by the DVO and the estimated fair market value cannot be the sole basic of the addition under section 69B of the Act. Therefore he submitted that the order

Indore Paraspar Sahakari Grah Nirman Sanstha Samiti, Indore vs. ACIT Circle 2(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/IND/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Indore Paraspar Sahkari Acit, Circle 2(1) Grih Nirman Sanstha Indore Vs. 224-Mishal Plaza, Tilakpath, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaaai2629G Assessee By Ms. Shreya Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2024 O R D E R

Section 50CSection 69

section 50C of the Income Tax Act and made addition of Rs.99,60,637/-. Ld. AR has further submitted that the fair market value of the property was much less than the stamp duty value due to the reason that the property was leasehold property and secondly the Community Hall ... other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that the objections raised by the assessee before the AO are restricted only for adopting fair market value and not on the applicability of section 50C of the Act. He has referred to the para 6.2.2 of the impugned order

Deepa Pamnani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 20(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4309/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Ms. Deepa Pamnani Vs. The Income Tax Officer Pamnanai Hospital & Ward 20(1)(1) Research Center Piramal Chamber 33 Cf +6Qc , Railway Station Lal Baug Road, Prem Colony, Mandasur Mumbai 400012 Madhya Pradesh 458001 Pan Cstpp4472L (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akepg6370P Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Ca & Mr. Kapil Jain Ca Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2024 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah CA and Mr. Kapil Jain CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR

Section 143Section 54FSection 68

mother i.e., assessee, the assessee is selling/transferring all these shares to another promoter of the group of the private limited company at fair market value. Therefore, the cost of acquisition in the hands of the donor and the period of holding of the donor of the asset shall be considered ... inventory of real estate. Therefore, the value of the shares of Rs. 1043 per share along with the controlling stake and the fair market value of the assets is appropriate. He submits that the finding of the learned CIT – A is without any basis. His finding is also incorrect

Ecotech Builders Private Limited, Noida vs. Pr, CIT, Noida

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1601/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Yr: 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(b)

PCIT were nothing more than the inadvertent clerical error committed by clerk of the Valuer which has no bearing on the fair market value of shares and when such discrepancies cannot form basis and reasons for invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act when such an error ... have assessed the fair value of equity shares of the Company as on the date of issuing this report based on the Fair Market Value (FMV) Method in terms of the rules 11U & 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, specified under section 56(2) (viia) of the Income

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Nagpur vs. M/S Vedsidha Products Privat Limited, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 25/NAG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 44ASection 56(2)(viib)

viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). As required by Explanation to section 56(2)(viib), the mode of computing fair market value is prescribed under Rule 11U & 11UA of the I.T. Rules, 1962. The assessee submitted a valuation, wherein fair market value per share was computed ... instant case, the valuation is done by the company's statutory auditor/Chartered Accountant who is appointed for the purpose of 44AB. The fair market value per share of the assessee company computed as per net asset value method by the Assessing Officer is negative [- 38.13/share]. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer

ITO Ward - 24(1), New Delhi vs. Solitaire Btn Solar Pvt Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1416/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

premium charged on issue of OCPS to be justifiable and thus rejected the FMV declared by the Assessee. The AO recomputed the Fair Market Value (FMV) of OCPS at Rs.639.17 as against Rs.1,000/- per OCPS received by the assessee. The AO observed that the share premium charged on issue ... holistically, there is no benefit derived by the assessee by issue of shares at certain premium notwithstanding that the share premium exceeds a fair market value in a given case. Instinctively, it is a transaction between the self, if so to say. The true purport of Section 56(2)(viib

Chemitech Engineers Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-6(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9074/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumar, CIT-DR

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

assessment order without examining the requirement laid down in Rule 11U / Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 for the determination of Fair Market Value (FMV) of shares issued by the assessee. The AO has simply accepted the valuation report without applying its mind to all perspective with reference ... furnished detailed working of assets & liabilities as on/no. of 20.01.2015, wherein FMV of shares was drawn at Rs.48.75. 2. The method for determining fair market value has been prescribed in Rule 11U and 11UA of the Income Tax Rules 1962. As per Rule 11UA, for computing the Fair Market Value

DCIT, Chennai vs. Tvs Investments Lrd., Chennai

In the result, the Revenue's appeal as well as the assessee's Cross Objection are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 262/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.262/Chny/2017 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit M/S. Tvs Capital Funds (P) Limited (Formerly Known As Tvs Investments Limited) Corporate Circle-3(1) बनाम/ Jayalakshmi Estates, Chennai-600 034. Vs. No.29, (Old No.8), Haddows Road Chennai-600 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-1154-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Dr. D. Praveen (Jcit) -Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-05-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Dr. D. Praveen (JCIT) -Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate)-Ld. AR

transactions were carried out in accordance with listing agreement and SEBI guidelines. The sale consideration of shares was supported by necessary evidences including fair market value of the shares as determined by the registered valuer in terms of relevant rules prescribed for valuation of shares. The assessee also relied

Goodwill Constructions, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Thane

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3233/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Parwani, Sr. DR

Section 142A(1)Section 43C

43CA of the I.T Act 1961, on account of difference between the actual sale consideration and the fair market value determined by the Valuation officer in respect of 12 flats for which agreements for sale were executed with customers 2 ITA No. 3233 Mum 2022-Goodwill Constructions during the year ... 43CA of the I.T Act 1961, on account of difference between the actual sale consideration and the fair market value determined by the Valuation officer in respect of 12 flats for which agreements for sale were executed with customers during the year under appeal, not appreciating that the differences