“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

Orient Overseas Container Line Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Int) Tax Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6570/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailorient Overseas Container Line Limited, C/O Oocl (India) Private Limited, Icc Chambers, 5Th Floor, Saki Vihar Road, Opp. Santogen Silk Mills, Powai, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400072 Pan : Aaaco5679E V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle – 3(2)(2), ……………… Respondent 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 244ASection 44B

Section of the Act or any other provisions of the Act. For instance, is a deeming provision which enables replacement of consideration with 'fair market value' where the amount of consideration is less than the fair market value determined in a prescribed manner. 16. Thus, in our view adding

Mayur Kanubhai Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 1992)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5600/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rishav PatawariFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

Shah 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee purchased the property with a value of Rs.93,77,103/-. The fair market value of the property for stamp duty purpose was Rs.2,69,74,200/-. During the assessment proceeding the Ld. AO asked the assessee for explanation ... bearing No. DVO-I/Mum/CGT/2021-22/378 dated 3 Mayur Kanubhai Shah 11.02.2022, annexed at APB pages 63 to 69, also records the fair market value of the immovable agricultural land situated at village Jamalpada, Taluka Sudhagad, District Raigad, and categorically determines the nature of the property as agricultural land (APB page

Laxmi Kashinath Thanekar, Maharashtra vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, Thane

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 4780/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234B

land acquired by Govt. of Maharashtra. 3. The Ld. Assessing Officer ignored the valuation report submitted from Chartered Engineer Registered Valuer for the fair market value as on 01/04/1981 without any valid reason and substituted the fair market value arbitrarily without referring to DVO. 4. The Ld. Assessing Officer wrongly

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2 1 1 Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Khyati Chemicals Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby allowed

ITA 1856/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 198Section 37(1)Section 40ASection 40A(2)(b)

unreasonable salary to avoid payment of tax. A.O. applied specific provision under section 40A (2) (b) regarding allowability of salary as per fair market value. Appellant being private limited company, not liable to pay salary more than 11% of the net profit as calculated in a manner laid down

Hero Fincorp Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 11(1), Delhi, C.R. Building

ITA 2542/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2542/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year:2017-18 Hero Fincop Ltd., 34 Community Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1) C. R. Building, New Delhi-110002 अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Pan:Aaach0157J Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Shri Himanshu Aggarwal Adv. Revenue By Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14.01.2026 उद्घोषणाकीतारीख/Pronouncement On 16.01.2026 आदेश /Order Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am, The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of ‘Hire Purchase Leasing & Finance'. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/(First Appellate Authority Hereinafter Referred As “Faa”), Delhi Dated 27.03.2024 Arising Out Of Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 29.12.2019For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Disallowance Of Provision For Collection Charges -Rs. 9,75,00,000/-

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 251(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

that the assessee has the option to adopt the valuation under Rule 11UA(2)(a) or under Rule 11UA(2)(b) i.e. the fair market value of unquoted shares determined by a merchant broker or an accountant as per discounted free cash flow method. 8 ITA No. 2542/Del/2024 Thereafter

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Snowfall Commotrade Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross-objection of the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 2087/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata………...….……………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. M/S Snowfall Commotrade Pvt. Ltd….……………………………...…..…..Respondent 27, Modi Building, R N Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700001. [Pan: Aaics0531J] C.O. 85/Kol/2025 (In Ita No.2087/Kol/2025) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Snowfall Commotrade Pvt. Ltd.….……………………………… Cross-Objector 27, Modi Building, R N Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700001. [Pan: Aaics0531J] Vs. Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata ……………………………..…...…..…………….Respondent Appearances By: Shri J. M. Thad, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 07, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey:

Section 14ASection 250

were also furnished before the Assessing Officer. He submits that the Assessing Officer himself has stated that the assessee had paid more than fair market value hence the question of any disallowance should not be arisen. The ld. AR further submits that the assessee ITA No.2087/Kol/2025 & C.O. 85/Kol/2025 M/s Snowfall ... assessee also furnished PAN and full address. We find that the Assessing Officer himself noted that the assessee paid more than the fair market value and the Assessing Officer has not mentioned under which provision the said disallowance has been made. We also find that the total income returned

Smt. Kusum Kujwal, Nainital vs. PCIT, Baireilly

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 102/DDN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Poonam Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263Section 45(2)Section 50C

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

Laljibhai Parshottambhai Gaudani, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahemdabad

ITA 1238/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year:2012-13

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 27(1)(c)Section 50CSection 50C(5)Section 53A

further submitted that the assessee had also disputed the Jantri value as adopted by the assessee which was in excess of fair market value of the property as on date of transfer. 7. Per contra, Shri. Rameshwar P Meena, Ld. Sr. D.R submitted that no copy of agreement dated

Vijay Balbhim Pise, Solapur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Solapur

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

ITA 195/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.195/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Vijay Balbhim Pise, Vs Ito Ward 1(2), 110, Railway Lines, Solapur- Solapur 413001 Maharashtra Pan-Ajgpp4660A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Soni (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

concealment of income which was based on the additions made on the basis of estimation of fair market value of the land based on deeming fiction as provided in Section 50C of the I.T. Act, 1961. The said penalty not be initiated. 6. The appellant craves leave

Acid, Circle-5(1), Kolkata vs. Emami Realty Limited, Kolkata

ITA 1457/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 2Section 250Section 50CSection 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant

Nilesh Pravinchandra Doshi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(1)(3), Mumbai, Maharashtra

ITA 8368/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarnilesh Pravinchandra Ito Ward 42(1)(3), Doshi Kautilya Bhavan, B/29, Pushpanjali Vs. Bandra Kurla Building, Jambli Gully, Complex, Bandra Borivali West, Mumbai- East, 400 092 Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Amcpd6391D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Jay Shah, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.01.2026

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

laid down the principle that section 50C and section 56(2)(vii)(b) operate on the same transaction, there cannot be two different fair market values for the same property, and the tolerance proviso, though introduced subsequently, is curative and must be applied retrospectively to avoid absurd and inequitable results

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. S K Z Developers LLP, Ahmedabad

Accordingly, allowed, whereas, the appeal of the revenue for the year under consideration is hereby dismissed

ITA 1729/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 23(5)

Assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that on-money receipt in its case is required to be computed considering average fair market value of sale of units @ Rs.6,500/- per Sq. Ft. when there was no reason to estimate on-money in case of Assessee ... required to be computed as per provision of Section 23(5) of the Act. He, however, restricted such estimated rent @ 3% of fair market value of property and directed AO to allow 30% standard deduction on such estimated rent as per provision of Section 24 of the Act. Being aggrieved

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. S K Z Developers LLP, Ahmedabad

Accordingly, allowed, whereas, the appeal of the revenue for the year under consideration is hereby dismissed

ITA 1728/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 23(5)

Skz Developers LLP, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Cent. Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad

Accordingly, allowed, whereas, the appeal of the revenue for the year under consideration is hereby dismissed

ITA 1678/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 23(5)

Skz Developers LLP, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Cent. Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad

Accordingly, allowed, whereas, the appeal of the revenue for the year under consideration is hereby dismissed

ITA 1677/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 23(5)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (E), Circle-1, Bangalore vs. K J Foundation, Bangalore

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

ITA 1742/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Kunjan Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT

Section 11Section 13Section 13(3)Section 143(3)

which in our considered view is absolutely correct. Further the ld. AO has no other materials to find fault with the fair market value of the leased out property and also no records were produced before us to prove that the rent paid is excessive

Gurdas Mal Arora, Kanpur vs. The A O Circle-1(2)(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 412/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshragurdas Mal Arora V. The Assessing Officer, 21/L/4, Daboli, Circle-1(2)(1) Kanpur. 16/69, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Afepm4342J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit-Dr O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68Section 69A

payments made to relatives specified u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act is found to be excessive or unreasonable having regard to fair market value or the legitimate needs. The Assessing Officer disallowed of Rs.23,06,000/- out of total salary paid to persons specified ... being Rs.42,86,000/- minus Rs.19,80,000/-) out of total claim of Rs.42,86,000/- was insufficient or inadequate, having regard to fair market, value, or legitimate needs of assessee’s business; having regard to facts and circumstances of the case. That being the case, we find no reason

Material Research Instruments, Mumbai vs. ACIT-Circle16(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4084/MUM/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 50C

consideration, the assessee computed the long-term capital gains by adopting the actual sale consideration of ₹69,76,689/- and by taking the fair market value of the property as on 01.04.1981 at ₹18,59,200/-, based on a valuation report obtained from a registered valuer. After applying indexation ... income along with the valuation report relied upon by the assessee is reproduced hereunder. Sale proceeds received on 69,76,689 05.08.2005 Less: Fair Market Value as on 01.04.1981 as per Valuation report Rs. 18,59,200 92,40,224 Indexed Cost =18,59,200 x 1,45,327 497/100

Sasikala Krishnasamy, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-5(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2558/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2558/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ms. Sasikala Krishnasamy, The Income Tax Officer, 1/40, Kpcm Colony, Vs. Corporate Ward 5(2), St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. Chennai -600 016. Pan: Bknpk 9425K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sundar Raman, Ca & Shri R. Srivatsan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri S. Sundar Raman, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

allotted by the private limited company was less than the market value based on the audited financial statement as on 31.03.2014, where the Fair Market Value (FMV) for one share was Rs.6,320/-. Further, the AO held that no evidence has been submitted to show that assessee was allotted shares ... right issues. Thereafter the AO concluded that since shares have been allotted to the assessee at lesser/inadequate consideration in comparison to the fair market value of the share, the difference between the FMV (Rs.6,320/-) and the allotted price (Rs.5,004/-) ought to be added as income of the assessee

Baba Healthcare Private Limited vs. ACIT Circle -1, Fbd

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 476/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshbaba Healthcare Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, C/O. Ipso Legal, H-35, 1St Circle-1, Floor, Jangpura Faridabad Extension, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcb7985R Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Saxena, Adv Ms. Ssumnagla Saxena, Adv Shri Dishant Sethi, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

justified by the Assessee by placing reliance on the valuation report obtained from a chartered accountant dated 9-9-2015, wherein the fair market value of the share was determined at Rs. 66 per share as required under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) read with Rule 11UA of the Income