fair market value — 2,353 case laws

Cmr Transport Contractors Company Private Ltd, Vijyawada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed,

ITA 69/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Cmr Transport Contractors Company Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax D.No.54-18/3-4, Sivapuram Colony Circle-2(1) Near Iti Gate Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Aaccc6075E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vamsi Rajesh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR

Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)Section 44A

disallowance u/s 40A(2) of the Act, since the payment made to Directors and their relatives is excessive and unreasonable compared to the fair market value of the hire charges. The AO further observed that the directors own less than 10 vehicles each and the income was admitted u/s 44AE ... Transport Contractors Company Pvt. Ltd., Vijayawada assessee has taken informed decision to hire tankers of the directors and their relatives based on the fair market value of similar services, facilities offered by third parties and decision is taken on commercial considerations. The Ld.AR further argued that

Shree Sita Pulses Pvt. Ltd., Durg vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 217/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 217/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shree Sita Pulses Private Limited Sita Group, Behind District Court, Millpara, Durg (C.G.) Pan : Aascs8895E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

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

confirming addition of Rs.38,31,080/- made by AO on account of alleged excess consideration received against issue of shares exceeding the fair market value of shares, invoking sec. 56(2)(viib). The addition made by AO and sustained by Ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary, contrary to evidences on record ... illegal and is not justified. 2 Ld. CIT(A) erred in affirming the action of AO of calculating the fair market value of Rs. 13/- per share in place of Rs.24/- per share, disregarding legal and cogent evidences available on record. The addition made by AO and sustained

Chandhok Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 200/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 200/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Chandhok Cold Storage Private Limited Ph No.100/28, Bilaspur Road, Ravigram S.O, Raipur-492 001 Pan : Aadcc8354P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 224Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

Whereas, shares were allotted on 30.03.2013. As per the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act 1961,:- (u) the fair market value of the shares shall be the value— (i) as may be determined in accordance with such method as may be prescribed ... prescribed under the Act, it is stated that "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- clause (b) of clause (c) of sub-rule (1), the fair market value of unquoted equity shares for the purposes of sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of Explanation to clause (viib) of sub-section

Osianama Learning Experience Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 3 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6796/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)Section 59

applicable, therefore, the AO invoked provisions of Section 56(viib) on allotment of 1,00,250 shares. 4. The ld. AO accepted the fair market value of the shares as per the valuation report which was arrived at Rs.341/- per share and difference of Rs.59/- per share which ... looking from the angle whether there is any tax evasion or not? The language of the Section is very clear and once the fair market value of the share is less than what is allotted then, the deeming provision gets triggered and addition has to be made. 5 M/s. Osianama

ACIT Circle-59(1), New Delhi vs. Sanjay Singhal & Sons (HUF), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 281/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 281/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Acit, Vs Sanjay Singhal & Sons (Huf), Circle-59(1), 9-110, Saraswati Kunj, 8, Alipur New Delhi Road, Delhi-110054 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaihs6800C Assessee By : Sh. Amit Goel, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. C. M. Garg, Judicial Member Dr. B

Tapi Jwil Jv, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-62(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4873/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi Jwil Jv, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat3744J Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, CIT-DR

Section 271GSection 40A(2)(b)Section 928BSection 92D

brought on record any material to prove that the expenses incurred by the assessee JV are excessive or reasonable having regard to the fair market value; and (iv) recorded his finding that he is rejecting the books of account. 7. The provisions of section 40A(2)(b) are applicable ... expenses which are considered to be excessive or unreasonable, having regard to the fair market value of the goods /services or facilities for which the payments are made. The AO had made disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b), by opining that the assessee JV should have earned income from sub- contracting

Tapi Jwil Jv, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-62(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6722/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi Jwil Jv, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat3744J Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, CIT-DR

Section 271GSection 40A(2)(b)Section 928BSection 92D

brought on record any material to prove that the expenses incurred by the assessee JV are excessive or reasonable having regard to the fair market value; and (iv) recorded his finding that he is rejecting the books of account. 7. The provisions of section 40A(2)(b) are applicable ... expenses which are considered to be excessive or unreasonable, having regard to the fair market value of the goods /services or facilities for which the payments are made. The AO had made disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b), by opining that the assessee JV should have earned income from sub- contracting

Sunil Pandurang Mantri, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

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

ITA 1799/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm Sunil Pandurang Mantri Acit 3&4, Kamal Co-Op. Society, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Walkeshwar Road, Walkeshwar, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abnpm4825D Assessee By : Shri. Abhishek Jhunjhunwala Revenue By : Shri. Swapnil Sawant Date Of Hearing: 03.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2023

For Appellant: Shri. Abhishek JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri. Swapnil Sawant

Section 143(3)Section 23Section 24

satisfy the condition laid down u/s 50C of the Act, as the assessee did not furnish any valuation report or proof of the fair market value of the property. Therefore, he made an addition of difference between actual sale value of ₹1,15,40,800/- and market value

M/S. Pragati Milk Product Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for respective assessment years under consideration are allowed

ITA 145/CTK/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.143 To 145/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 To 2014-2015) M/S Pragati Milk Products(P) Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.71/A/1, New Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack-754021 Pan No. :Aaecp 6353 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.10.2018, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0487/2017-18 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Facts In All The Cases Are Identical. It Was The Submission That There Was Search In The Premises Of The Assessee. As A Consequence Of Search, Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.153A Of The Act. In The Assessment U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Had Been Granted The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib(11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Said Assessment Order Was The Subject Matter Of Rectification Application On Multiple Occasions & In The Third Round Of Rectification Application The Ao Has Withdrawn The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib (11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The 2

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 80I

case, the ITO applied the wrong provisions of law in the original assessment while permitting the assessee to exercise its option to offer fair market value as on 1-1-1954, for the cost of acquisition of depreciable asset. This was permitted on the mistaken application of law. Later ... invoking the provisions of section 154 ITO withdrew the permission given to the assessee to exercise its open to offer fair market value as on 1-1-1954. Since there is an error apparent on the face of the record in passing the original assessment order, warranting application of section

M/S. Pragati Milk Product Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for respective assessment years under consideration are allowed

ITA 144/CTK/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.143 To 145/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 To 2014-2015) M/S Pragati Milk Products(P) Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.71/A/1, New Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack-754021 Pan No. :Aaecp 6353 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.10.2018, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0487/2017-18 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Facts In All The Cases Are Identical. It Was The Submission That There Was Search In The Premises Of The Assessee. As A Consequence Of Search, Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.153A Of The Act. In The Assessment U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Had Been Granted The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib(11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Said Assessment Order Was The Subject Matter Of Rectification Application On Multiple Occasions & In The Third Round Of Rectification Application The Ao Has Withdrawn The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib (11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The 2

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 80I

case, the ITO applied the wrong provisions of law in the original assessment while permitting the assessee to exercise its option to offer fair market value as on 1-1-1954, for the cost of acquisition of depreciable asset. This was permitted on the mistaken application of law. Later ... invoking the provisions of section 154 ITO withdrew the permission given to the assessee to exercise its open to offer fair market value as on 1-1-1954. Since there is an error apparent on the face of the record in passing the original assessment order, warranting application of section

M/S. Pragati Milk Product Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for respective assessment years under consideration are allowed

ITA 143/CTK/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.143 To 145/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 To 2014-2015) M/S Pragati Milk Products(P) Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.71/A/1, New Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack-754021 Pan No. :Aaecp 6353 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.10.2018, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0487/2017-18 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Facts In All The Cases Are Identical. It Was The Submission That There Was Search In The Premises Of The Assessee. As A Consequence Of Search, Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.153A Of The Act. In The Assessment U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Had Been Granted The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib(11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Said Assessment Order Was The Subject Matter Of Rectification Application On Multiple Occasions & In The Third Round Of Rectification Application The Ao Has Withdrawn The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib (11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The 2

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 80I

case, the ITO applied the wrong provisions of law in the original assessment while permitting the assessee to exercise its option to offer fair market value as on 1-1-1954, for the cost of acquisition of depreciable asset. This was permitted on the mistaken application of law. Later ... invoking the provisions of section 154 ITO withdrew the permission given to the assessee to exercise its open to offer fair market value as on 1-1-1954. Since there is an error apparent on the face of the record in passing the original assessment order, warranting application of section

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Thane vs. Hemchand Murji Gada, Mumbai

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

ITA 2118/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-1, Thane, Room Shri Hemchand Murji Gada, No. 22, B-Wing 6Th Floor, Ashar B-2, Laxman Nagar Near Vs. It Park, Wagle Industrial Aradhana Cinema Panch Estate, Thane(W)-400604 Pakhadi Kaju Pada, Thane(W)-400602. Pan No. Aacpg 2047 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Satya Prakash SinghFor Respondent: Mr. P.D. Chogule, CIT-DR

Assessing Officer has not compared the fair the Assessing Officer has not compared the fair the Assessing Officer has not compared the fair market value of similar kind of warehouses/godowns. Secondly, the market value of similar kind of warehouses/godowns. Secondly market value of similar kind of warehouses/godowns. Secondly open area ... paid by the assessee to three related parties is the assessee to three related parties is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value

Genxt Mobile LLP, Mumbai vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 31(1)

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2106/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Hemant ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

this sub-section, and the Assessing Officer is of opinion that such expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the Genxt Mobile LLP ITA no.2106/Mum./2023 goods, services or facilities for which the payment is made or the legitimate needs of the business ... 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

Asst CIT 6 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Chiripal Poly Films Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 258/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Selvamani

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

short ‘the Rules’] holding the same to be share capital/premium received by the Assessee from resident companies in excess of the fair market value determined under Rule 11UA using Net Asset Valuation Method. However, no separate addition was made by the Assessing Officer since addition ... Asset Valuation (NAV) method. Since the shares were issued by the Assessee at INR 1,050/-, being a price higher than the Fair Market Value of INR 338.61 determined by the Assessing Officer, alternative addition at the rate of INR 711.39/- [INR 1050 – INR 338.61] per share issued

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Hem Bhattad, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2314/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Hem Bhattad, National Faceless Appeal 104, Bajaj Bhavan, Centre (Nfac), Mumbai. Vs. Nariman Point, Churchgate, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaaah 2399 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit Circle-3(3)(1), Hem Bhattad, Room No. 609, Aayakar 104, Bajaj Bhavan, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Churchgate, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaaah 2399 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Mr. P.D. Chogule, CIT-DR

Section 37Section 40

without affording an opportunity to the AO to examine the Land Ltd. without affording an opportunity to the AO to examine the fair market value of the transaction and whether the said party is fair market value of the transaction and whether the said party is fair market value

Hem Bhattad, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-3(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1934/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Hem Bhattad, National Faceless Appeal 104, Bajaj Bhavan, Centre (Nfac), Mumbai. Vs. Nariman Point, Churchgate, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaaah 2399 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit Circle-3(3)(1), Hem Bhattad, Room No. 609, Aayakar 104, Bajaj Bhavan, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Churchgate, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaaah 2399 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Mr. P.D. Chogule, CIT-DR

Section 37Section 40

without affording an opportunity to the AO to examine the Land Ltd. without affording an opportunity to the AO to examine the fair market value of the transaction and whether the said party is fair market value of the transaction and whether the said party is fair market value

M/S. Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT2(3) (1) -, Mumbai

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

ITA 468/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Section 143Section 234Section 234BSection 80

tariff rates. Such tariff rate is utilized by GEB for charging its end customers for consumption of electricity and therefore, it represents the „fair market value‟ of electricity supply to the end customers. The assessee also filed various documentary evidences and also made detailed submissions regarding the value of power

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Satya Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly the Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 2892/Del/2015 is dismissed

ITA 2892/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: the hon'ble Appellate Tribunal to the finding of the Id. Commissioner (Appeal), on the basis of remand report furnished by the Assessing Officer during the course of appeal proceedings, that the Assessing Officer of the searched person had not recorded satisfaction note to the effect that the seized documents did not belong to his assessee, i.e., the person searched upon, but belonged to another person, i.e., the instant assessee, and, therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue is liable to

Section 153CSection 68Section 69

case, the addition of Rs. 20,59,10,700/- u/s 69 in respect of unexplained investment on account of difference between alleged fair market value of the property situate at 8287 (25/56), Ward No. XVI, Plot No. 25, Bloack- 56, Karol Bagh, Delhi and the purchase consideration declared ... searched all the premises of the assessee and in the absence of any direct incriminating material, any addition merely on the basis of fair market value hypothetically calculated by the assessing officer is illegal, unjustified and therefore, ought to be deleted. 6. That, on the facts and circumstances

ACIT Circle-15(2), New Delhi vs. Lifestyle Probuild Pvt Ltd, Ghaziabad

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3552/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: AO; that valuation report dated 15.03.2012 prepared by the Chartered Accountant as per rule 11UA

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Jyoti Verma, Sr. DR

Section 56(2)(viib)

foregoing paragraphs, it is clear that valuation of share at Rs.1,500/- is in accordance with law where shares are issued at fair market value considering different basis on sound footings. Therefore, rejection of the same by AO with book value of shares is not tenable and addition made ... consideration for issue of shares that exceeds the face value of such shares, the aggregate consideration received for such shares as exceeds the fair market value of the shares: Provided that this clause shall not apply where the consideration for issue of shares is received— (i) by a venture capital

The DCIT, Circle-2(1), Thrissur vs. Sri.K.P. Johny, Thrissur

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate (with Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv. with him)For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 147Section 148(1)Section 69

October, 2009 but before the 1st day of April, 2017,— ……………………………. (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; Page 15 ITANos. 206 & 254/Coch/2019 ... Johny vs. Asst. CIT (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:” The same brings the difference between the transfer consideration

“fair market value”

Leading authorities on fair market value

Judgments citing fair market value

Cmr Transport Contractors Company Private Ltd, Vijyawada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada

Shree Sita Pulses Pvt. Ltd., Durg vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

Chandhok Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur

Osianama Learning Experience Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 3 (2)(2), Mumbai

ACIT Circle-59(1), New Delhi vs. Sanjay Singhal & Sons (HUF), New Delhi

Tapi Jwil Jv, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-62(4), New Delhi

Tapi Jwil Jv, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-62(4), New Delhi

Sunil Pandurang Mantri, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

M/S. Pragati Milk Product Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

M/S. Pragati Milk Product Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

M/S. Pragati Milk Product Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Thane vs. Hemchand Murji Gada, Mumbai

Genxt Mobile LLP, Mumbai vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 31(1)

Asst CIT 6 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Chiripal Poly Films Ltd., Mumbai

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Hem Bhattad, Mumbai

Hem Bhattad, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-3(3)(1), Mumbai

M/S. Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT2(3) (1) -, Mumbai

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Satya Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ACIT Circle-15(2), New Delhi vs. Lifestyle Probuild Pvt Ltd, Ghaziabad

The DCIT, Circle-2(1), Thrissur vs. Sri.K.P. Johny, Thrissur