← 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

Varun Satyapal Singhal, Vadodara vs. The Incometax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3( Now the DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 636/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That He Shall Not Be Pressing For Ground Nos. 3, 4 & 5 Of His

Section 250Section 40ASection 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 41(1)Section 68

certain parties during the year under consideration. Such disallowance was made by the assessing officer after adopting rate of interest of 11% as “Fair Market Value” of interest based on the rate of interest charged by the assessee from M/s. Mariya Ship Breaking Pvt. Ltd. 4. In appeal ... payment has been made to the parties covered u/s. 40A(2)(b) if the same is excessive or unreasonable having regards to the fair market value of the goods, services or facilities for which the payment is made or the legitimate needs of the business or profession of the appellant

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(3), Bengaluru vs. Praveen Reddy (HUF), Bengaluru

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

ITA 651/BANG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sri Prasanna N. Uralal, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Parithivel V., D.R
Section 250(6)Section 50Section 54Section 54F

adopt any other value for sale consideration other than assessed by the stamp valuation authority as there was no dispute regarding the fair market value of the land of for the purpose of assessing capital gains. b) Whether in the present fact and circumstances of the case

DCIT, CC-20, Delhi vs. Weldon Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1868/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Gs Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. and Shri Utkarsh Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68A

applicable in the Page 2 of 13 ITA No.- 1868/Del/2021 M/s Weldon Polymers Pvt. Ltd. assessee's case. The amount after computing fair market value of shares as per rule 11UA is Rs. 81,10,640/- (formula for computing fair market value as per rule 11UA is (A-L)*PV/PE ... Therefore, to compute price of each share the fair market value as computed above (81,10,640/-) is to be divided by total no. of shares issued (15,13,040/-). Hence, the computation done by AO as per Rule 11UA for price of each share

Shri Dilip Devjibhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Cirlce-1(2) Now the Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara

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

ITA 101/AHD/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 50C

relied upon the decision of K. P. Varghese vs. ITO 131 ITR 597 (SC). The Ld. AR further submitted that the fair market value estimated by the valuation officer is more than the prevailing market value and filed the working of average sq.mt. rate based on comparable sales instances

Piramal Finance Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 1273/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT. DR
Section 143(3)Section 251Section 35ASection 80G

being 50% of the Guarantee Commission paid to PEL, by holding the same to be excessive as compared to the fair market value which was not disputed by the AO, without providing an opportunity to the assessee as required u/s 251(2) of the Act 2. He further erred ... where the provision of Section 40A is invoked, the AO has to establish that the expenditure was excessive or unreasonable having regard to fair market value of the payment made or the legitimate needs of the business. The fact that similar guarantee commission was claimed in the past years which

Kalyan Pal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-40(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 708/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 708/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Kalyan Pal,…………………………………..……….Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No. 203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aacpp5347B] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………...…Respondent Ward-40(1), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West). Council House Street, 1St Floor, Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Loviesh Shelley, Jcit, D.R. Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 07, 2024 O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 48Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 54F

which Stamp Duty was charged on the sale deed, as provided in Section 50C of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contended that fair market value of the property is not more than the amount disclosed by the assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer has remitted the issue to the Departmental ... disputes. 5. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Departmental Valuation Officer has submitted his report and he determined the fair market value of the property at Rs.91,93,854/- . Copy of this Valuation Report is being placed on pages no. 3 & 4 of the paper book

V Govind (HUF), Velachery Main Road vs. ACIT, Greams Road

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

ITA 1114/CHNY/2023[2009.10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 53A

assessee before AO and CIT(A) has only raised the issue of referring the matter back to the DVO to ascertain the Fair Market Value u/s.50C of the Act. Apart from this, the ld. Senior DR has not argued anything. 7. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts

M/S Wisley Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-11(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 55/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 55/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/S. Wisley Real Estate Pvt. Ltd.,…..........Appellant 86C, Viswakarma, 1St Floor, Topsia Road, Tiljala, Kolkata-700046 [Pan:Aakcs8704L] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……..........................Respondent Ward-11(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 18Th March, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: June 6Th , 2024 O R D E R

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 234BSection 68

that the assessee failed to furnish the details of capital work-in-progress and the details of sale deed, copy of land deed, fair market value of fixed assets etc. and also could not file the details about business activities of the company and year-wise profit. He further submitted ... Considering the book value, we note that the assessee had not charged heavy share premium and one has to also consider that fair market value of the land/project is normally much higher than the cost appearing in the books as per historical cost method. 10. All the above details

Rahil Maheshkumar Nizamuddin, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxation Circle 1(2), Blr, Bangalore

ITA 379/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan &For Respondent: Sri Guru Kumar S., D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty. 2.15 The ld. A.R. for the assessee submitted that the aforesaid addition was mainly on account of an inaccurate estimate in the fair market value as on 01/04/1981 and the assessee as such cannot be held responsible for the lapses in the valuation report furnished as the same

Hatch Tact Innovations Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1261/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Hatch Tact Innovations Private Vs Pr. Cit, Limited, Faridabad. C2/215, Jal Vayu Towers, Sector 56, Gurgaon (Haryana) – 122 002. Pan: Aadch5527R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K. Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr & Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.06.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

order that necessary evidence regarding confirmations of persons from whom share premium have been received and certificate from the Chartered Accountants regarding the fair market value of the shares as per Rule 11UA was furnished which was verified and placed on record and, accordingly, the return of income declaring loss ... shares of face value of Rs. 10 during previous year 2015-16 relevant to assessment year 2016-17. Assessee has adopted fair market value of Rs.1,080 per share as per Discounted Cash Flow Method (DCF). However as per rule 11UA(2) of Income Tax Rules, 1961, the fair market

DCIT Centralcircle-2(3), Chennai vs. M/S Tangi Fcility Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 735/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.735/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit M/S. Tangi Facility Solutions Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Central Circle-2(3) Old No.42, New No.2, Chennai-34. Luz Avenue, Mylapore, Vs. Chennai-600 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafct-1408-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mrs. Swapna Nanu Ambath (Cit)- Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G. Shivakumar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-03-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024

For Appellant: Mrs. Swapna Nanu Ambath (CIT)- Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri G. Shivakumar (Advocate)-Ld. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(b)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viia)

Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.254,55,24,025/ made towards shares, being bonus shares received without consideration, against the fair market value of shares as "Income from other sources" by invoking provision u/s.56(2)(viia) 2.1 The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate the intent behind ... shares of a company not being the company in which the public are not substantially interested, the difference between actual consideration and fair market value of shares is to be treated as " Income from other sources" under this clause. 2.2 The ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that

Vasudev Yashwant Abhyankar, Raigad vs. ITO, Ward-4, Panvel

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

ITA 663/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.663/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vasudev Yashwant Vs. Ito, Ward-4, Panvel. Abhyankar, Jambhulpada, Sudhagad Raigad- 410205. Pan : Acypa1203H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.02.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit(A)-Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Passing An Ex-Parte Order Without Considering The Matter On Its Merits. He Failed To Consider The Submissions Made By Assessee Manually Before The Hon’Ble Cit(A)-2, Thane During The Physical Hearings Before Him On Various Dates. As Such, The Impugned Order Has Been Passed Without Considering The Matter On Its Merits. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred On Facts & In Law In Making Addition Of Rs.9,96,500 On Account Of Purchase Of Land For A Consideration Less Than That Of The Value Determined By The Stamp

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 43CSection 56(2)(vii)

issued on 10.09.2014. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee has purchased three different lands below the fair market value determined by the stamp duty authority for the purpose of registration. It was further found by the AO that the assessee also sold six properties ... during the course of business wherein the consideration was less than the fair market value determined by the stamp duty authority for the purpose of registration. After considering the reply of the assessee, 3 the AO added Rs.9,96,500/- to the income of the assessee being the difference

ACIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi vs. Hero Electronix P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 1370/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 14ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

first appellate authority on the reasoning that without establishing the fact that the payments made are excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value, the Assessing Officer has disallowed them. 7. Having considered rival submissions, we find, the Assessing Officer has invoked the provisions of section ... expenditure claimed by the assessee on account of payment made to some specified person is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of such goods, services or facilities, such expenditure can be disallowed under the said provision. However, the crucial fact which needs to be examined

Dilip Kapur, United States of America vs. ACIT, Circle 2(1)(2) International Taxation, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2059/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumarshri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv. and Shri Aman Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT- DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 234D

section 142A of the Act to the valuation officer and consequent valuation report submitted by the District Valuation Officer for estimation of the fair market value of the capital asset is illegal, void and liable to be quashed. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... assessee that the reference to Valuation Officer under Section 142A of the Act cannot be made for the purpose of computing the fair market value of the capital asset for the purposes of chapter- IV of the Income Tax Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Ramasamy Pushpa, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), International Taxation, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 279/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.279/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ramasamy Pushpa International Taxation W2 (1) D. No.2/31, Sankarampalayam Chennai. Village, Kumaripalayam Post, Namakkal Dist 637 015. [Pan: Cvwpp 7128R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.05.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 56(2)(vii)

guide lines fixed by the state Government is only for the limited purpose of collection of stamp duty and does not reflect the fair market value, even though this plea was made both before AO and also before the first appellate authority. 6. On the facts and circumstances

Anubhav Kapoor, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer - 2(1)(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2364/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54B

grounds of appeal raised by the assessee reads as under:- “1 the authorities below have erred in law and on facts, in taking fair market value of residential property situated at Triveni Nagar, Mohalla - Ahibarnapur, Sitapur Road, Lucknow at Rs.1,62,47,700/- as against actual sale consideration realised ... mentioned above, they themselves should have made a reference to the DVO under section 50C(2) of the Act so as to ascertain fair market value of the property in question at the time of sale; (4) notice under section 143(2), even if issued on 27.09.2017, could not have

Sarjan Realities Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Cicle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 47/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 234ASection 43CSection 50CSection 50C(2)

been mentioned that jantri value was worked out by considering the land as "agricultural rural land". e. In order to determine correct fair market value of land, "valuation reports" from recognized Government approved valuer were obtained and furnished by the assessee. f. Comparative details of "sale consideration", "¡antri value

Sarjan Realities Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 46/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 234ASection 43CSection 50CSection 50C(2)

been mentioned that jantri value was worked out by considering the land as "agricultural rural land". e. In order to determine correct fair market value of land, "valuation reports" from recognized Government approved valuer were obtained and furnished by the assessee. f. Comparative details of "sale consideration", "¡antri value

Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 7(1), Mumbai

ITA 2308/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 37(1)Section 41(3)Section 80H

holding that the capital gains arising from the transfer of Plot no. 2 amounted to Rs. 17,99,02,095 by adopting the fair market value of the asset transferred as at 01.04.1981 at the rate of Rs.5.85 per sq.ft. (Rs.63 per sq.mtr.) (b) The CIT(A) ought to have

ACIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Novartis India ( Formelry Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, (i) the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose (ii) the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and (iii) the Cross Objections filed by the assessee ...

ITA 2188/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal & Co 76/Mum/2013 (A.Y 2003-04) Novartis India Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Vs. Novartis India Limited Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 37(1)Section 41(3)Section 80H

holding that the capital gains arising from the transfer of Plot no. 2 amounted to Rs. 17,99,02,095 by adopting the fair market value of the asset transferred as at 01.04.1981 at the rate of Rs.5.85 per sq.ft. (Rs.63 per sq.mtr.) (b) The CIT(A) ought to have ... mistake apparent from records. Hence the later justification forwarded by the assessee company for adopting the rate of Rs.80/- per sq.ft. as fair market value as on 1/4/81 is not acceptable as the rate of Rs.5.85 per sq.ft. as mentioned above is based on actual sale instances of 12 cases