← 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

Sitaram Sultania, Patna vs. DCIT/ACIT, Cir-6, Patna

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 11/PAT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50CSection 50C(2)

Sitaram Sultania comparables quoted in valuation report and has adopted the arbitrary rate of Rs. 2,168/- per Sq Ft of arriving at fair market value at Rs. 86,72,000/-. For the sake of ready reference, the rates in the DVO report are extracted below: 5. We also note

Murtuza Kothari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, ground nos. 1 & 2 of the assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 4080/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Otwani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 48Section 49Section 50CSection 54

given long back ie, around 50 years back, now pagdi amount becomes the original cost and that is replaced as per indexation i.e, Fair Market Value as on year 2001. It is to be held that originally when the appellant occupied the premises, what were the understanding with the owner ... during F.Y.2014-15". The appellant in response to the aforesaid notice, furnished the computation of total income, wherein capital gain worked out considering the fair market value amounting Rs.45,00,000/- of said property as on 22/07/2008(Date of Development agreement) ie. the date of acquisition of ownership, as per valuation

Icici Securities Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai -4, Mumbai

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

ITA 3766/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80G

contribution to the growth and performance of the organisation. 11 ICICI Securities Limited 17. Upon exercise of the options, the difference between the fair market value of the shares on the date of exercise and the grant price was taxed in the hands of the employees as a perquisite under

Mr. Thirumani, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-6(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3351/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:3351/Chny/2024 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Thirumani, Acit, 260/1, Mint Street, Park Town, Vs. Non-Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai – 600 003. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aagpt-7541-K] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(थ&/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54FSection 56(2)(vii)

matter was thereafter referred to the Department Valuation Officer (“DVO”). The DVO, by final valuation report dated 19.01.2021, determined the fair market value at Rs.8,29,12,000/-. Thus, the difference between the DVO’s value and the stated consideration is merely Rs.1,12,000/-, resulting in assessee’s share ... evidence of extra consideration, would lead to an unjust and absurd result. 25. The DVO, being a technical authority, has determined the fair market value at Rs.8,29,12,000/-, which is only Rs.1,12,000/- higher than the declared consideration. This valuation virtually corroborates the assessee’s declared

Jagmeet Singh Sabharwal, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 954/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Singh Sabharwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 50C

ought to have accepted the explanation that difference is less than 2% and the value shown is true and fair market value.” 3. At the outset, it was notice that the instant appeal is delayed by 272 days. In an affidavit filed, it is stated by the assessee that ... that the AO ought to have accepted the explanation that difference was less than 2 percent and the value shown was true and fair market value. It is also submitted that the AO was requested to go for valuation if he so desired which was not accepted on the ground

Jewelex India Priavte Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5285/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarjewelex India Private V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 401 Trade Centre, Bandra 14(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharishi Karve Marg, (East), Mumbai – 400 098, Mumbai – 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcj4523H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 43(6)(c)Section 80G

amount deemed to be received on the sale of the immovable property in case the transfer value is less than the fair market value. The ld. CIT(A) also relied on the decision in the case of ITO vs. United Marine Academy [2011] 130 ITD 113 (Mum), wherein for computing ... provisions of Section 50C the amount deemed to be received on sale of immovable property (in case transfer value is less than fair market value) shall be the stamp duty valuation. Harmonious reading of both the provisions together, it is clear that section 50C is applicable while selling of depreciable

Madhur Coal Mining Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1784/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50DSection 56(2)(viia)

stated that the assessee was allotted shares from the group companies and the consideration paid was lower than the fair market value and the addition had been made on account of the difference between the consideration and the FMV. It was contended that it was a case of allotment ... property, being shares of a company not being a company in which the public are substantially interested,- (i) without consideration, the aggregate fair market value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the whole of the aggregate fair market value of such property; (ii) for a consideration which is less than

Vikas Jain, Kanpur vs. ACIT-CC 2(1)(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 434/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Vikas Jain, Vs. The Acit, H-2/1, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur- Circle 2(1)(1), Kanpur 208001 208006 Pan: Abqpj8049R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 17.05.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S. 143(3) For The A.Y. 2015-16 On 27.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because There Being No Reason To Believe, Far From There Being Any Material To Form Reasons To Believe, The Proceedings Initiated Right From Issue Of Notice U/S. 148 & The Re-Assessment Framed Thereof Are All Without Jurisdiction Bad In Law, The Order Passed Be Quashed. 02. Because The So-Called Reasons Having Been Recorded Applying Explanation 2(A) To Section 147, Of The Act Which Not Being Applicable, The Very Reason To Believe Being Contrary To The Mandate Of The Section, The Proceedings- Initiated U/S 148, The Reassessment Framed Are All Contrary To The Provisions Of Law, Be Quashed. 03. Because The Approval Given By The Competent Authority U/S 151, Being Mechanical In Nature Without Verification Of Facts, The Notice Issued U/S 148 & The Reassessment Framed Thereafter Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 156Section 48Section 50C

value of Rs. 42,12,000/- as evidenced in the sale deed of the property under reference was the only and the actual fair market value of the property and nothing over and above the said value could be treated as fair market value of the property, as the assessee ... Vikas Jain A.Y. 2015-16 been duly declared in the return of income and could not be substituted by any other fair market value. It was further submitted that only for execution of the sale deed under reference, Reliance Industries Limited had surrendered the lease hold rights of the property

Sunita Bhardwaj, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 61(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1431/DEL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 151Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

made the addition of notional rent of Rs.42,54,272/- from total 13 (thirteen) properties owned by the assessee, by taking the fair market value of these thirteen properties tabulated at page 11 of the order at Rs. 1215,50,625/- and by taking 5% of the sum as fair ... balance amount of Rs.42,54,272/-. In first appeal, Ld. CIT(A) though confirmed the action of the AO however, has reduced the fair market value of these properties to Rs.4,86,20,250/- Sunita Bhardwaj vs. ITO and by taking 5% as same fair rental value worked

Sunita Bhardwaj, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 61(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1430/DEL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 151Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

made the addition of notional rent of Rs.42,54,272/- from total 13 (thirteen) properties owned by the assessee, by taking the fair market value of these thirteen properties tabulated at page 11 of the order at Rs. 1215,50,625/- and by taking 5% of the sum as fair ... balance amount of Rs.42,54,272/-. In first appeal, Ld. CIT(A) though confirmed the action of the AO however, has reduced the fair market value of these properties to Rs.4,86,20,250/- Sunita Bhardwaj vs. ITO and by taking 5% as same fair rental value worked

Sunita Bhardwaj, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 61(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1429/DEL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 151Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

made the addition of notional rent of Rs.42,54,272/- from total 13 (thirteen) properties owned by the assessee, by taking the fair market value of these thirteen properties tabulated at page 11 of the order at Rs. 1215,50,625/- and by taking 5% of the sum as fair ... balance amount of Rs.42,54,272/-. In first appeal, Ld. CIT(A) though confirmed the action of the AO however, has reduced the fair market value of these properties to Rs.4,86,20,250/- Sunita Bhardwaj vs. ITO and by taking 5% as same fair rental value worked

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Jaswinder Kaur Grewal, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 200/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur, CIT, DR (Virtual Mode)
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 69B

information gathered during the course of assessment proceedings in the case of M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., that the fair market value of residential plot/SCO were much higher than the registered value. While framing the assessment of M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. the value of one SCO sold

DCIT-CC-6(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Gopal Narayandas Kela, Akola

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2897/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Girish Agrawaldcit-Cc-6(1), Mumbai Vs. Gopal Narayandas Kela Room No. 445, 4Th Floor, 40 Ramanath Sadan, Kaufilya Bhawan, Bkc, Ravi Nagar Goenka Mumbai-400051 Layout, Akola Maharashtra-444001 Pan/Gir No. Aczpk2401Q (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250Section 69Section 69C

expenditure. It was submitted that the allegation of the AO that the assessee had purchased the property for a value lower than the Fair Market Value (FMV) and paid the difference between the agreement value and FMV in cash is wrong. Under the Income Tax Act there are specific anti

Vanraj Ranchhoddas Merchant (Through Legal Heir Harshit Merchant), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 30(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5234/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50CSection 54F

Puranik v. ITO. It was also submitted that the stamp duty valuation adopted by the Collector of Stamps could not be considered as fair market value for income-tax purposes, as the property was encumbered and occupied by tenants, thereby depressing its real market value. The assessee also requested that ... matter be referred to the Departmental Valuation Officer for determination of fair market value. The matter was referred to the valuation cell on 31.10.2014. The DVO, vide letter No. DVO- I/MUM/CGT/744/2014-15/1597 dated 24.03.2015, informed that the valuation was under progress and the report could not be furnished before

Manaveeya Development & Finance Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 480/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.480/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Manaveeya Development & Finance Private Limited, Hyderabad. The Dcit, Circle-5(1), Vs. Pin – 500 034. Hyderabad – 500 004. Telangana. Pan Aaecm1085E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca B Satyanarayana Murthy राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24.12.2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA B Satyanarayana MurthyFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 948Section 94B

fair value gain of the equity investment as well as the capital gain/profit on sale of equity investment computed based on the fair market value of the investment as against the actual cost of acquisition. The Pr. CIT was not convinced with the reply of the assessee and noted that ... u/sec.94B as well as the computation of income and particularly, the capital gain on account of sale of equity shares based on the fair market value of the investment. He has further submitted that the assessee has rightly added back the amount of Rs.9,87,68,419/- u/sec.94B

Jyoti Embroidery Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 5637/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2013-14 Jyoti Embroidery Private Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward 10 (2)(1), V1-0 Vara’S House, 1St Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Ganeshwadi, Ground Floor, Mumbai – 400020. Near Mj Market, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai – 400002 Pan – Aaacj 0872 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Dharan Gandhi, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.07.2025 Impugned Herein Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (For Short Ld. Commissioner) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short The ‘Act’) For The Ay 2013-14. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Has Sold A Land To M/S. Yogeshwar Farms Private Limited For A Sale Consideration Of Rs. 2,15,00,000/- & Claimed The Long Term Capital Gain Of Rs. 1,58,00,000/- In The Return Of Income Filed On Dated 28Th September, 2013, Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 1,57,50,330/-. The Ao Considered The Said Claim Of The Assessee & Ultimately Found That The Stamp Duty Value Of The Property Is Of 2 Jyoti Embroidery Private Limited Rs.387,39,000/- & The Assessee Has Sold The Property For Rs.2,15,00,000/- I.E. Less Than The Value Adopted Or Assessed By The Valuation Authorities Of The State Government & Therefore He Vide Assessment Order Dated 25.09.2017 Under Section 143 (3) Read With Under Section 147 Of The Act, Ultimately Made The Addition Of Rs. 1,72,39,000/- Being Differential Amount Between The Stamp Duty Valuation & The Value Declared By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. SR. DR
Section 143Section 147Section 250Section 55

along with annexures 1 and 2, on the basis of valuation and sale instances, estimating the fair market value of the property under consideration to the tune of Rs. 2,17,78,000/- and thereafter vide final valuation report dated 22-11-2019, reiterated the value of the property

Amarjit Kaur Ranjit Singh Anand, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 24(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4377/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Pratik JainFor Respondent: 30/09/2025
Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

cent” had been substituted;] (c) any property, other than immovable property, any property, other than immovable property,- (A) without consideration, the aggregate fair market value of which exceeds fifty without consideration, the aggregate fair market value of which exceeds fifty without consideration, the aggregate fair market value of which exceeds ... fifty thousand rupees, the whole of the aggregate fair market value of such property; thousand rupees, the whole of the aggregate fair market value of such property; thousand rupees, the whole of the aggregate fair market value of such property; (B) for a consideration which is less than the aggregate

Himanshu Kukreja, Dehradun vs. ITO, Dehradun

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 147/DDN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Himanshu Kukreja Vs Income Tax Officer Matta Garg & Co. Ca 15- Income Tax Office, 13-A, Astley Hall, Dehradun, Subhash Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakjhand Pan:Ahipk9462F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. K. Matta, Ca Revenue By Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2025

Section 13(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property:] (c) any property, other than immovable property. (i) without consideration the aggregate fair market value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees. the whole of the aggregate fair market value of such property. (ii) for a consideration which is less ... than the aggregate fair market value of the property by an amount exceeding fifty thousand rupees, the aggregate fair market value of such property as exceeds such consideration Provided that where the stamp duty value of immovable property as referred to in sub-clause (b) is disputed by the assessee

Indian City Properties Limited, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT, Kolkata - 2, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1051/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: ShriSanjay Chatterjee, ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bhashyam, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55A

this case a piece of land was sold at Nagpur for Rs.70.08 crore as against stamp duty valuation of Rs.68.72 crore. The fair market value of the land was determined at Rs.21.16 crore by the Registered Valuer of the assessee. After considering indexation on fair market value and indexed cost ... improvement, taxable long term capital gain came to be Rs.5.99 crore, which was offered to tax. The fair market value as per the DVO as on 01.04.2001 has been determined at Rs.18.06 crore on an illegal referral of the case to him. The Faceless Assessment Unit had not accepted this

Vestas Wind Technology India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. Jci, Co. Range-III, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 319/CHNY/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Srinivasan, CIT for Shri. Bipin C.N., CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)Section 92B

expenditure side is Section 40A(2) of the Act, which empowers the disallowance of expenditure considered excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value. However, that provision is explicitly limited to the expenditure. The present case concerns sales made by the assessee. Thus, even the provisions of Section