← 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

DCIT, Circle-21(1), New Delhi vs. Religare Securities Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 7556/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Dcit, M/S Religare Securities Ltd., Circle-21(1), 2Nd Floor, Room No. 202 B, Vs Rajlok Building, 24, 2Nd Floor, C.R. Building, I.P. Nehru Place, Estate, New Delhi-110019. New Delhi Pan- Aaacf1952D Revenue Assessee

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

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 goods, services or facilities for which the payment is made or the legitimate needs of the business or profession of the assessee ... before while invoking provisions of this section has to clearly state that the expenditure incurred is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the goods, services or facilities for the which payment is made or the legitimate needs of the business or profession of the appellant

Yogendra Sharma, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Etah

In the result, the appeal preferred by assessee is allowed

ITA 408/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Yogendra Sharma, I-4695, 2Nd Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Floor, Gali No. 4-B, Balbir Nagar Ward 3(2), Etah. Extension, Shahdara, Delhi. Pan :Cgkps6492J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

basis of the valuation report. He should have considered the actual sale consideration or the stamp duty valuation, which is the fair market value. He prayed that the additions made by the tax authorities are excessive. 7. On the other hand, Learned DR supported the findings of the lower authorities ... Learned 7 | P a g e CIT(Appeals) has enhanced the addition merely relying on the valuation report, which cannot be considered as fair market value when the stamp duty valuation is also available on record. Therefore, the enhancement made by the ld. CIT(Appeals) is accordingly deleted. 10. With

Lalchand Narayan Bhakt, Jalna vs. ITO Ward 2, Jalna

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

ITA 93/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri A D Kulkarni
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 2(47)(v)

transfer of 9 an immovable property which shall be deducted from the cost for which the asset was acquired or WDV or the fair market value, as the case may be, in computing the cost of acquisition when the same is ultimately sold. He submitted that the impounded document found ... respect of such negotiations shall be deducted from the cost for which the asset was acquired or the written down value or the fair market value, as the case may be, in computing the cost of acquisition : Provided that where any sum of money, received as an advance or otherwise

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Jsw Energy Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment

ITA 2767/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (ACCOUNTANT

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Jsw Energy Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment

ITA 2366/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (ACCOUNTANT

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Jsw Energy Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years under consideration stands partly allowed and cross appeals filed by the assesse stands dismissed

ITA 2365/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(3)

market value to Arm’s Length Price for specified domestic transactions. 12.3. She has submitted that, it is mandatory that after 01/04/2013, the fair market value or the market value has to be determined under Chapter X of the Act i.e. under the TP provisions only. She vehemently submitted that

Shankar Polmersetty, Bagbera Kitadih vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Jamshedpur

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

ITA 454/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.454/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shankar Polmersetty.... …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant H.No.12, Gel Church Mohlla, Gurudwara Road, Tatanagar, Ps Bagbera, Kitadih, Jharkhand- 831002. [Pan: Ajspp1582B] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Jamshedpur.….....….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 18, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 12.11.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment In The Case Of The Assessee Was Completed By Making An Addition Of ₹12,21,500 Under Section 56(2)(X) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer Noted That The Assessee Purchased A Flat For A Consideration Of ₹9,35,000, Whereas The Stamp Duty Value Adopted By The Stamp Valuation Authority Was ₹21,56,500. Accordingly, The Difference Was Treated As Income Under Section 56(2)(X) Of The Act. The Assessee Submitted That The Booking Of The Flat Was Made On 28.06.2010 & An Advance Payment Of ₹51,000 Was Made Through Account Payee Cheque On The Date Of Agreement. It Was Further Contended That The Property Is Situated In A Rural Area & The Stamp Duty Value As On The Date Of Agreement Was Much Lower Than

Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

order assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. before the CIT(A). Where during appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that the fair market value of the flat as on 28.06.2010 was significantly lower. It was also pointed out that the guideline value/ready reckoner rate applicable on that date was approximately ... while granting partial relief, the Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the DVO’s valuation as on the date of sale/registration, without examining the fair market value of the property as on the date of agreement, i.e., 28.06.2010. In the interest of justice, we are of the considered view that

Pravinsinh Bhawansinh Vaghela, Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Gandhinagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 829/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 54BSection 54FSection 68

income at ₹4,44,12,740/-. While framing the assessment, the Assessing Officer treated the land sold as non-agricultural land, adopted the fair market value of the land as on 01.04.1981 at ₹5 per sq. meter as against ₹80 per sq. meter claimed by the assessee, and accordingly recomputed ... confirming the addition of ₹66,77,877/- by adopting an incorrect Pravinsinh Bhawansinh Vaghela vs. ITO Asst.Year –2012-13 - 5– and unreasonably low fair market value of the land as on 01.04.1981. The Counsel submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) mechanically adopted the rate

Instakart Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Special Range-3, Bangalore

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 544/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate and Ms. AnkitaFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT

However, the AO upon examination of the scheme, observed that what was being reimbursed by the assessee was only the difference between the fair market value of shares on the date of exercise and the grant price of the ESOPs. According to the AO, this difference ... appellant as employee cost. In the case of Novo Nordisk, the jurisdictional ITAT held that the ITAT held that the difference between the Fair Market Value . ITA No.330,331,496,543 &544/Bang/2024 S.A No.25/Bang/2025 Page 31 of 46 of the shares of parent company and the price at which those

Instakart Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Special Rang-3, Bangalore

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 543/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Voh

However, the AO upon examination of the scheme, observed that what was being reimbursed by the assessee was only the difference between the fair market value of shares on the date of exercise and the grant price of the ESOPs. According to the AO, this difference ... appellant as employee cost. In the case of Novo Nordisk, the jurisdictional ITAT held that the ITAT held that the difference between the Fair Market Value ITA No.330,331,496,543 &544/Bang/2024 S.A No.25/Bang/2025 Page 31 of 46 of the shares of parent company and the price at which those

DCIT CC -1(4), Bengaluru vs. Instakart Services Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 531/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Voh

However, the AO upon examination of the scheme, observed that what was being reimbursed by the assessee was only the difference between the fair market value of shares on the date of exercise and the grant price of the ESOPs. According to the AO, this difference ... appellant as employee cost. In the case of Novo Nordisk, the jurisdictional ITAT held that the ITAT held that the difference between the Fair Market Value ITA No.330,331,496,543 &544/Bang/2024 S.A No.25/Bang/2025 Page 31 of 46 of the shares of parent company and the price at which those

DCIT, CC-1(4), Bengaluru vs. Instakart Services Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 530/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Voh

However, the AO upon examination of the scheme, observed that what was being reimbursed by the assessee was only the difference between the fair market value of shares on the date of exercise and the grant price of the ESOPs. According to the AO, this difference ... appellant as employee cost. In the case of Novo Nordisk, the jurisdictional ITAT held that the ITAT held that the difference between the Fair Market Value ITA No.330,331,496,543 &544/Bang/2024 S.A No.25/Bang/2025 Page 31 of 46 of the shares of parent company and the price at which those

Instakart Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 496/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Voh

However, the AO upon examination of the scheme, observed that what was being reimbursed by the assessee was only the difference between the fair market value of shares on the date of exercise and the grant price of the ESOPs. According to the AO, this difference ... appellant as employee cost. In the case of Novo Nordisk, the jurisdictional ITAT held that the ITAT held that the difference between the Fair Market Value ITA No.330,331,496,543 &544/Bang/2024 S.A No.25/Bang/2025 Page 31 of 46 of the shares of parent company and the price at which those

Brawny Nivesh P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 571/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 3Section 47Section 56Section 56(2)(via)Section 56(2)(viia)

shares involved in the transaction is of a company in which public are substantially interested; and iii) Difference between the consideration and fair market value of share is less than fifty thousands. iv) This section shall not apply on transactions not regarded as transfer under clause (via) or clause ... above provisions and to find out whether the transaction was covered in point no. (iii) above or not, the AO noted that the Fair Market Value (FMV) of shares of Gain E Commerce Pvt. ltd. and Kanti Commercial Pvt. Ltd was required. Thereafter, the AO determined

M/S Scania Commercial Vehicles India Pvt Ltfd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

The Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 261/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 92C

under the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act for the reason for consideration received for issue of shares exceeding the fair market value of such shares. During the year, Assessee has issued 2,00,000 equity shares at a face value of Rs. 100 to its foreign ... issue of shares as received from a resident. However, the Assessing Officer, in the draft Assessment Order made the above computation. The fair market value of shares as per rule 11UA of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer also when questioned the Assessee, the Assessee furnished the valuation report

Aadarsh Surana, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1840/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 47Section 68

furnished concrete evidence regarding the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding or the quantification of liabilities. Further, the AO noted that the fair market value of the shares of the company, as per Rule 11UA of the Income- tax Rules, 1962, worked out to only Rs.23.36 per share

Himmatbhai Madhabhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1552/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalhimmatbhai M. Patel, Vs. Ito, 18, Kailash Dham Part-2, Ward 5(3)(1), India Colony Road, Bapunagar, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380024 [Pan :Aanpd 2497 D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divetia & Shri Samir Vora, Ars Respondent By: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia & Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

cent", the words "twenty per cent" had been substituted;] (c) any property, other than immovable property,— (A) without consideration, the aggregate fair market value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the whole of the aggregate fair market value of such property; (B) for a consideration which is less than ... 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… …… Section 50C reads as under:- Special provision for full value of consideration in certain cases. 50C. (1) Where the consideration received or accruing

Oceaneering International Gmbh, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation) Range 3(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 6705/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri A.K. JawadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 172Section 44B

other provisions of the Act. For instance, Section 50CA 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 GST component to the deemed

Ram Manohar Kumar, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-2(2), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 145/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshram Manohar Kumar, Vs. Ito, C/O. K. R. Manjani, Adv, Ward-2(2), Add0-29, Basement, Ghaziabad Lajpat Nagar-2, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aiopk9764F Assessee By : Shri K. R. Manjani, Adv Shri Tarun Ashwani, Adv Revenue By: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Manjani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 2(14)

also submitted that in any event the ld AO ought to have granted deduction for the cost of land by determining fair market value on 01.04.1981. This claim of deduction for cost of land was made on without prejudice basis by the ld AR. Ram Manohar Kumar 5. Considering

M/S Gera Developments Pvt. Ltd, Pune vs. PCIT (Central), Pune

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

ITA 1053/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Audit Report and impairment is just an exercise for the year under consideration where for the Companies Act and under the Fair Market Value concept assessee has impaired the asset but the same can be added back as per the Fair Market Value of such intangible asset in subsequent period ... recognised in the books which the assessee has duly done. On one hand assessee has accepted in the Audited Financial statements that the Fair Market Value of the Goodwill as on the close of the year is Nil but on the other hand on the very same asset which