“fair market value”

Capital GainsSection 55(2)Section 55(2)2,353 judgments

The decision most relied on for fair market value is Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT (372 ITR 83), cited in 159 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on fair market value

Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT

372 ITR 83 · 2015 · High Court

159

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer is duty-bound to refer the valuation of property to the Departmental Valuation Officer under Section 50C(2) when an assessee disputes the stamp duty valuation or if there is a discrepancy between the actual sale consideration and the guideline value. This reference is mandatory, even if not explicitly requested by the assessee, to ensure a realistic fair market value and avoid injustice.

CIT v. ITC Ltd.

236 Taxmann 612 · 2016 · High Court

108

citing judgments

When computing deduction under Section 80IA, specifically for inter-unit transfer of power, the benefit cannot be claimed based on rates chargeable by distribution licensees to consumers. The deduction must be computed based on the rate fixed by the Tariff Regulation Commission for sale by electricity generating companies.

PCIT v. Chain House International (P) Ltd.

98 Taxmann.com 47 · 2018 · High Court

104

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot arbitrarily reject a share valuation report prepared by an expert using recognized methods like NAV or DCF for the purpose of Section 56(2)(viib) without providing valid reasons to demonstrate its perversity or unreasonableness.

CIT v. Puja Prints

360 ITR 697 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

The amendment to Section 55A(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which replaced "is less than" with "is at variance" as the condition for referring a valuation to a Departmental Valuation Officer, does not have retrospective effect. Consequently, for periods before July 1, 2012, a DVO reference is invalid if the declared value is not "less than" the fair market value.

Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd. v. PCIT

164 DTR 257 · 2018 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessee has the option to choose either the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method or the Net Asset Value (NAV) method for share valuation under Section 56(2)(viib) read with Rule 11UA. The Assessing Officer cannot substitute the chosen method or value without identifying a specific error in the assessee's valuation.

Hiaben Jayantilal Shah v. ITO

310 ITR 31 · 2009 · High Court

citing judgments

When an assessee presents a registered valuer's report for an asset, the Assessing Officer, if forming an opinion that the value claimed is less than the fair market value, must refer the valuation to the Valuation Officer under Section 55A(a). The AO cannot unilaterally reject the registered valuer's report or resort to Section 55A(b) in such a scenario.

CIT v. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh

309 ITR 233 · 2009 · High Court

citing judgments

The full value of consideration for computing capital gains under Section 48 refers to the amount stated in the sale deed and cannot be substituted by the market value or a valuation by the DVO under Section 55A, unless there is evidence that the assessee actually received a consideration in excess of the stated amount.

CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co.

87 ITR 407 · 1973 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The "full value of the consideration" for computing capital gains under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (or Section 12B(2) of the 1922 Act), means the price actually bargained for and agreed to by the parties, not the market value of the asset transferred. In a sale transaction involving a price, the market value of the consideration is not relevant.

Judgments citing fair market value

Parveen Commodity Brokers (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 19(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 5173/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Department by: . Rajesh Dhanesta. SrFor Respondent: . Rajesh Dhanesta. Sr

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 29Section 56(2)(viia)

trade and holding the same as gift income is factually incorrect, legally misconceived and therefore untenable. 2.2. That various adverse findings including fair market value worked out and conclusions recorded in the impugned order are factually incorrect, contrary to record, legally misconceived and without granting any opportunity much less

Tpg Growth II Makets Pte Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 4 raised by the Appellant is partly allowed

ITA 1387/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh BafnaFor Respondent: Dr. Samuel Pitta

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 5Section 9Section 92C(3)

Shares from AE: TPO concluded that the Appellant has received shares for consideration less than the fair market value. The difference in the value determined by the TPO and the purchase consideration was treated as income chargeable to tax under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’ in terms of Section ... concluded that the Appellant had received shares of QNPL for a consideration of INR 2,115.54 per share of QNPL less than the fair market value and therefore, proposed transfer pricing adjustment of INR 83,60,61,408/-. In the Draft Assessment Order, dated 15/06/2021, the Assessing Officer proposed

Shri Kiran Kasturchand Shah, Surat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 282/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.282/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Kiran Kasturchand Shah, Vs. The Pcit-1, Surat 235-236, Shankheshwar Complex, Kailash Nagar, Sagrampura, Surat – 395002. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agzps1397K Appellant By Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ar Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) 24/05/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 06/06/2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

purchased an immovable property for total purchase consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- on 07.02.2018. However, the stamp duty valuation authorities had determined the fair market value of the property at Rs.2,14,10,560/-. Thus, it is clear that the Assessee had purchased the property below the stamp duty value ... Assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings difference of Rs.2,11,60,560/- (Rs.2,14,10,560 – Rs.2,50,000) between the Fair market value and actual purchase value of the immovable property was required to be added to the total income of the Assessee

Jiostar India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 16 (1), Mumbai

ITA 7872/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal (V.P.), Shri Aby T. Varkey (J.M.) & Shri Prashant Maharishi (A.M.) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.7872/Mum/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

Section 255(3)

argument of the ld. DR that the purchase of CLT20 rights was not at ALP as it did not represent its fair market value, in our considered opinion, is unfounded and not germane in the context of the ALP determination under the CUP method. It goes without 60 Star India ... Private Limited saying that the concept of the ALP is different from the concept of `fair market value’. The latter represents the true value of particular goods or services, which in certain cases, may not be equal to the actually transacted price in a comparable uncontrolled situation. Whereas the fair

Blp Vayu (Project-1) P.Ltd, Gurgaon vs. Pr.CIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4895/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

share premium received during the year. The Assessing Officer however in the course of the assessment has completed the assessment and accepted the Fair Market Value (FMV) of shares submitted by the assessee without carrying out examination on justification of the share premium and also the creditworthiness of the subscriber ... case. It was thereafter submitted that the allotment have been carried out in tune with the valuation report towards calculation of fair market value of shares as per Rule 11UA(2)(b) of the Income Tax Rules. A copy of valuation report obtained in this regard was referred

ITO 17 (2)(4), Mumbai vs. Neumec Builders & Developers, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6423/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri S.D. PathakFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 28Section 50C

determination of the taxable profits of the assessee in respect of the above transaction. The AO further held that the fair market value so determined by the DVO will be adopted to compute the taxable profits of the assessee. The AO also held that if the report ... Duty Authorities at Rs. 41,08,20,500). It is pertinent to note that in this order also the AO noted that the fair market value so determined by the DVO will be adopted to compute the taxable profits of the assessee and since the report

Shri Lalit Kumar Kalwar, Sarwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ajmer

ITA 379/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 48Section 50CSection 54FSection 54F(1)

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in adopting fair market value of property from F.Y. 2004-05 without considering the explanation (iii) to provision of section 48 of the Act. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sodexo Facilities Management Services India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2945/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopaldcit, Sodexo Facilities Circle-13(2)(2), Management Services बनाम/ Mumbai. India Pvt.Ltd., 1St Floor, Vs. Gemstar Commercial Complex, Ramchandra Lane, Extension Kanchpada, Malad West, Mumbai-400064. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabcs4166M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri A.N.Bhalekar, Sr.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mrunal Parekh सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 16/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 25/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Om Prakash Kant- Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.09.2022 Passed By Ld Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“In Short The Ld. Cit(A)”]For Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2012-13, Raised Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri A.N.Bhalekar, Sr.ARFor Respondent: Shri Mrunal Parekh

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 43(6)(c)Section 50B(3)

Gains 2,99,95,422 4 | P a g e The AO in the assessment proceedings, substituted the sale consideration received by the Fair Market Value (“FMV”) of the transaction of the slump sale of the transfer of food division at Rs.7,20,32,509/- [i.e. which was estimated ... worked out by the valuer as against the net worth of Rs.1,50,04,578/- computed by the assessee. 4. The fair market value (FMV) of the sale consideration computed by the AO is reproduced as under: - Sl.No. Particulars Profit Before Tax Tax 1. PERFORMANCE

ACIT, Central Circle-263, New Delhi vs. Naresh Kumar Jian, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue

ITA 1754/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR

submitted after spot visit enquiries and after ascertaining the market value of this property through the property dealers of the area indicating the fair market value of the property.” ITA No.1753/Del./2019 (AY : 2014-15) “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT (A) has erred