← 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

Gallant Freight and Travels Pvt Ltd, Mumbai City vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, Mumbai

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

ITA 3964/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri N.H. GajriaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh
Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

that such expenditure Gallant Freight And Travels Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.3964/Mum./2023 ITA no.3911/Mum./2023 is excessive or unreasonable having regard 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 assessee ... opinion of the AO, the payment made by the assessee to any related person is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the goods, services or facilities for which the payment is made, so much of the expenditure as is considered excessive or unreasonable

Gallant Freight and Travels Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, Faceless Centre Delhi, Mumbai

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

ITA 3911/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri N.H. GajriaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh
Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

that such expenditure Gallant Freight And Travels Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.3964/Mum./2023 ITA no.3911/Mum./2023 is excessive or unreasonable having regard 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 assessee ... opinion of the AO, the payment made by the assessee to any related person is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the goods, services or facilities for which the payment is made, so much of the expenditure as is considered excessive or unreasonable

Global Shoes and Accessoris Manufacturing Co., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 48(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2251/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganeshglobal Shoes & Accessories Vs. Dcit, Manufacturing Co., Circle-48(1), C/O. Prakash K Prakash, 6H, New Delhi Hansalaya Building, Barakhamba Road, Cannaught Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaifg4169N Assessee By : Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Adv Revenue By: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ruchesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 48Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 50C(2)

assessee has raised several ground of the appeal, the only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the fair market value of the property sold by the assessee could be substituted with the value sought to be determined by the Global Shoes and accessories Manufacturing

The DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad vs. Dolphin Laboratories Ltd., ( Now Known As Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1298/AHD/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

land at Rs.1,17,40,000/- instead of Rs.25 lakhs. The Assessing Officer while calculating the capital gain has not accepted the fair market value of the land as on 01/04/1981 as Rs.1.25crores as claimed by the assessee, on the ground that no valuation report from Govt. Approved Valuer ... Therefore, Ld CIT[A] accepted the assessee’s submission of the Government Approved Valuer’s Report, and directed the AO to adopt the fair market value of the land as on 01/04/1981 at ITA Nos.ITA Nos.1297 & 1298/Ahd/2014 Dy.CIT vs. Dolphin Laboratories Ltd. AY(s) 2004-05 : 7 : Rs.1

The DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad vs. Dolphin Laboratories Ltd., ( Now Known As Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1297/AHD/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

land at Rs.1,17,40,000/- instead of Rs.25 lakhs. The Assessing Officer while calculating the capital gain has not accepted the fair market value of the land as on 01/04/1981 as Rs.1.25crores as claimed by the assessee, on the ground that no valuation report from Govt. Approved Valuer ... Therefore, Ld CIT[A] accepted the assessee’s submission of the Government Approved Valuer’s Report, and directed the AO to adopt the fair market value of the land as on 01/04/1981 at ITA Nos.ITA Nos.1297 & 1298/Ahd/2014 Dy.CIT vs. Dolphin Laboratories Ltd. AY(s) 2004-05 : 7 : Rs.1

M/S Mercantile Ventures Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-4(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 623/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.623/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Mercantile Ventures Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of- No.88, Spic House, Income Tax, Mount Road, Corporate Circle-4(1), Guindy, Chennai-600 032. Chennai. [Pan: Aaicm 6095 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Shri P.V.Sudhakar, Advocate : ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 02.01.2024 घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of : 14.02.2024 Pronouncement

Section 263Section 53Section 53(1)Section 53(2)Section 53(3)

equity shares at a discount. However the PCIT without considering the reply filed has proceeded to pass the order finding fault with the fair market value arrived as per Rule 11UA(1)(c) of the IT. Rules during transfer/sale of the said shares which was not spelt ... market price as on the date of purchase of shares by the appellant ranged from Rs.nil to Rs.5.92 per share. Compared to the fair market value arrived at by the appellant at the time of transfer/sale which was between Rs.0.50 to Rs.6 per share, there is no big difference

Shri Krishnaraj Buildhome Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

ITA 753/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Feb 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Sharma (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43CSection 50

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” JAIPUR श्री संदीDeep गोसाई, न्यायिक

Jai Kishan, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward -39(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 947/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jai Kishan, Vs Ito, 737, Village Pooth Khurd, Ward-39(3), New Delhi-110039. New Delhi. Pan-Aiepd4881E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Aakriti Dhawan, Adv. Respondent By Shri Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14.02.2024

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 54B

gain accrued on sale of two urban lands. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Ld. A.O calculated the fair market value of the land in a manner contrary to the provisions contained in the Act. 3. That the failure of the Ld. AO in adopting ... dated 12.05.2010 and R-9414 dated 12.05.2010 during the year under consideration. While framing the assessment, the AO adopted the Fair Market Value (“FMV”) as per the website of Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and made addition of INR 2,15,03,436/- on account of Long Term

JCIT, Special Range-1, New Delhi vs. Axis Risk Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2920/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Anupama Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 40Section 40a

Bench in Novo Nordisk India (P) Ltd. in (2014) 42 taxmann.com 168 (Bangalore Tribunal) wherein it was held that the difference between the Fair Market Value of the shares of the I.T.A. No.2920/Del/2018 3 parent company and the price at which those shares were issued to the employees of Indian ... employees was paid by the employee to the Assessee who in turn paid it to the parent company. The difference between the fair market value of the shares of the price at which shares were issued to the employees was met by the Assessee. This factual position is not disputed

The ITO 4 (3), Indore vs. Smt Ranjana Gupta, Indore

ITA 4/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Income-Tax Officer, Smt. Ranjana Gupta, 4(3), 204, Sant Marg, बनाम/ Indore. Gandhi Nagar, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Bcjpg 9105 N Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja & Hitesh Chimnani, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2024

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54B

allowed by AO. 9. Facts apropos to this ground are such that while computing taxable gain, the assessee adopted the option of Fair Market Value as on 01.04.1981 at Rs. 1,07,638/- per hectare, accordingly computed cost of acquisition of 2.600 hectare of land sold ... opposed CIT(A)’s order. He submitted that it is the assessee who herself filed a copy of the sample-deed which revealed fair market value at Rs. 89,552/- per hectare. Ld. DR argued that when the AO adopted assessee’s own submission, where is the question of having

Raina Garg, Bhopal vs. CIT(A), Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 334/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Indore12 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Raina Garg, Ito-4(1), Prop. M/S. Garg Trading Bhopal Company, बनाम/ Purana Kabadkhana, Vs. Jumerati, Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aawpg4732F Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.02.2024

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)

make disallowance only if “the Assessing Officer is of the opinion that such expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having regard 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 assessee ... benefit derived by or accruing to him therefore..” Therefore, the AO can make disallowance with reference to the ‘fair market value’ and the AO is also required to consider the ‘legitimate needs of business’; the AO does not have authority to make a blanket disallowance just by comparing two unconnected

DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Ifb Agro Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 491/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad&Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80ISection 92C

that the rate adopted by the appellant at Rs.8.48 per unit for the CPP at West Bengal was excessive and did neither represent fair market value nor the ALP of the power supplied by CPP. On the contrary he adopted Rs.3.23 per unit as the ALP for the power generated ... appellant at Rs.6.76/6.85 per unit & Rs.6.79/Rs.6.84 per unit for the CPPs at Rajasthan & Madhya Pradesh was excessive and did neither represent fair market value nor the ALP of the power supplied by CPP. On the contrary he adopted Rs.4.13 per unit8i Rs.2.45 per unit as the ALP for the power

DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Ifb Agro Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 490/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad&Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80ISection 92C

that the rate adopted by the appellant at Rs.8.48 per unit for the CPP at West Bengal was excessive and did neither represent fair market value nor the ALP of the power supplied by CPP. On the contrary he adopted Rs.3.23 per unit as the ALP for the power generated ... appellant at Rs.6.76/6.85 per unit & Rs.6.79/Rs.6.84 per unit for the CPPs at Rajasthan & Madhya Pradesh was excessive and did neither represent fair market value nor the ALP of the power supplied by CPP. On the contrary he adopted Rs.4.13 per unit8i Rs.2.45 per unit as the ALP for the power

Smt. Nirmala Venkatapathy, Madurai vs. ITO, Ward - II (1), Madurai

Accordingly, all the grounds taken by the appellant are dismissed

ITA 2492/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2492/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Late Smt. Nirmala The Income Tax Officer, Venkatapathy, Vs. Ward Ii(1), Rep. By Legal Heir, Smt. Uma Madurai. Venkatachalam No.12, Jawahar Road, Chockkikulam, Madurai – 625 002. Pan: Agcpn 9068P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N.Arjun Raj, Ca (Amicus Curie) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Madurai In Ita No.010/2013-14 Dated 08.08.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Ii(1), Madurai For The Assessment Year 2010-11 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 14.03.2013. 2. The First Issue On Merits Is As Regards To Assessment Of Capital Gains.

For Appellant: Shri N.Arjun Raj, CA (Amicus Curie)For Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

account of inflation of cost of acquisition which resulted in capital loss and accordingly, escapement of income. According to AO, the fair market value of this land as on 01.04.1981 is @ Rs.14.6 per sq.ft., and the cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 was estimated being fair market value at Rs.70

Keep Learning Resources Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-12(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1693/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blekeep Learning Resources Private Limited V. Income Tax Officer – 12(3)(2) D-Wing, Chanakya Chs Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Link Road, Mahavir Nagar Mumbai - 400020 Kandivali (W), Mumbai - 400067 Pan: Aadcc6594R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Kapil Sanghvi Department Represented By : Shri P.D. Chougule

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

shares of ₹.10/- each fully paid up in MLRPL valued at ₹.3,48,25,690/-. He Further, observed that for the purpose getting fair market value of the equity shares of the assessee company on which the assessee has charged premium, the assessee has taken value of assets ... assessee company based on which premium has been charged, he observed that the assessee has adopted Net Asset Value Method for arriving the fair market value of the equity shares of the assessee company as per section 56(2)(viib) r.w. Rule 11UA I.T.Rules, the assessee has a choice Page

DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Continental Corrugators Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1538/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

challenge the reversal of additions of Rs.2,60,00,000/- on account of share premium received by the assessee-company in excess of Fair Market Value (FMV) under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 3. Briefly stated, the assessee-company is engaged in the business of corrugated boxes ... invoked the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) and considered the premium amount of Rs.26 per share to be in excess of Fair Market Value (FMV) of equity shares of the company and consequently the excess consideration received on account of share premium on issue of equity shares were held

ACIT Circle-7(2), New Delhi vs. Dhruv Milkose Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8431/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Chakrapani, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

assessee. The Assessing Officer disputed the amount of share premium received per share on the ground that the premium received exceeded the Fair Market Value (FMV) of such shares contemplated under Section 56(2)(viib) r.w. Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The AO rejected the DCF Method ... with a premium of Rs. 4,435.76/-per share. The company has adopted the DCF method to arrive at the fair market value of the shares to be issued for allotment of shares at Premium. It is further submitted that the shares were allotted by the appellant to its holding

Lords Fincap Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle - 15(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 6980/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Nitin Gulati, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT- DR
Section 131

appellate assessee has stated that circle rate of Rs.30,000 per square yard considered by DVO do not represent the fair market value prevailing in the year when sale transaction has taken place in the year of sale. For this we draw the attention by enclosing the documentary evidence

Ramkumar Reddy Satty, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Comissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed in part

ITA 489/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR
Section 153ASection 48

expenses claimed. Page 2 of 5 5. In respect of the third addition of Rs. 28,98,579/-, assessee contended that the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the flat as on 01/04/2001 was Rs. 682,140/- as against the value adopted by the learned Assessing Officer

Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 631/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.631/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) Tata Motors Limited Bombay House, 24,Homi Mody Street, Hutama Chowk, Mumbai – 400001. Pan: Aaact-2727-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate With Shri Nikhil Tiwari,Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsala Jha, Cit-Dr & Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate with Shri Nikhil Tiwari,AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha, CIT-DR and Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.AR
Section 116Section 143(3)Section 92C

purchased factory land and building from its AE i.e. Hispano in Spain for a total consideration of Rs.160.07 crores. The assessee determined the fair market value of the land and 41 building on the basis of valuation report from an independent external Valuation Expert. The assessee paid Euro 24.70 million