“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

Naresh Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi

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

ITA 1325/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2010-11

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

Sulochana Saijan Modi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-National E-Assessment Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 557/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh& Shri Om Prakash Kantsulochana Saijan Modi, Ito, A-501, Akar Apartment, National E- बनाम/ Film City Road, Malad Assessment Centre, Vs. East, Mumbai-400097. Mumbai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaopm0887F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Shashi Tulsian ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Ajay Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 11/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 23/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Om Prakash Kant - Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.01.2023 Passed By Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] For Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsianFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh, Sr.AR

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(x)

assessee entered into agreement for purchase of flat and had made certain payment at time of booking of flat, stamp duty valuation or fair market value of immovable property was to be considered as on date of payment made by assessee towards booking of flat

ACIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi vs. Global Fairs & Media Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3328/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3328/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 बनाम Acit Global Fairs & Media Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Circle 10(1) 9-10, Express Building, New Delhi. Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaecg3877C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 47

considered view, the Assessing Officer has completely ignored the commercial prudence of an assessee relating to valuation of an asset. Determination of fair market value has to be as per prescribed methodology and even the Assessing Officer has accepted the discounted cash flow method as appropriate method for valuation

ITO Ward -3(1), New Delhi vs. Appealing Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1958/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 1958/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S Appealing Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 921A, 9Th Floor, Devika Tower, Ward-3(1), New Delhi-110002 Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaica8767B

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Agarwal, AR &For Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 42Section 56(2)(viib)Section 57(2)(viib)

consideration for issue of share that exceeds the face value of such shares, the aggregate consideration received for such shares as exceeds the fair market value of the shares, will be charged to tax in the hands of the recipient company as income from other sources. 9. After a subscriber ... that exceeds the face value of such shares, the aggregate 6 Appealing Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. M/S Worship Infraprojects Pvt Ltd(Previously Known As Om Metals Spml Infraprojects Pvt Ltd), Jaipur

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 431/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Bhardwaj, CIT &

Section 92C

section and the A0 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 or the benefit derived

Worship Infraprojects Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Ceircle-2, Jaipur

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 394/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Bhardwaj, CIT &

Section 92C

B. Shahabuddin & Co., Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-63(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6951/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 234B

Following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. Determining Long Term Capital Gain on the sale of property by adopting fair market value as on 01.04.1981 at Rs.85,26,000/- as against the actual value of Rs.1,60,75,599/-. 2. Confirming the assessment of capital gains ... deleting interest levied u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 wrongly charged by the Assessing Officer.” Determination of Fair Market Value as on 01.04.1981: 3. The Assessee acquired property on 21.08.1974 from MIDC at Rs. 5,69,100/- and sold the property on 25.03.2014. The assessee

Sis Prosegur Holdings Pvt Ltd, Patna vs. Pr.CIT-1, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 47/PAT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.47/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sis Prosegur Holdings Pvt. Ltd...…………....….........…..........….…… Appellant Annapoorna Bhawan, Patliputra Telephone Exchange, Kurji, Patna, Bihar-800010 [Pan: Aaucs7524A] Vs. Pcit-1, Patna..................................…………........….....…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Nageswar Rao, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 18, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 25.03.2021 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Ld. Pcit While Examining Assessment Records Found That The Assessee During The Year Had Issued 900000 Equity Shares Of Rs.10/- At A Premium Of Rs.90/- Per Share Totalling Rs.100/- Per Share. The Ld. Pcit Further Observed As Under: It Is To Be Noted That, During The Year Under Consideration, The Provisions Of Section 56(2)(Viib) Were Applicable As Per Which If Aggregate Consideration For Issuance Of Shares Is More Than Fair Market

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

No.47/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 SIS Prosegur Holdings Pvt. Ltd value of the shares, the difference has to be taxed as income. The fair market value can be Book Value or value determined as per discounted cash flow method (DCF). A perusal of the details filed shows that book value ... section 56(2)(viib) of the Act was applicable and that the Assessing Officer has not examined the above aspect relating to the fair market value of the shares and that there were discrepancies in the valuation record I.T.A. No.47/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 SIS Prosegur Holdings Pvt. Ltd furnished

Mrs. Ruchita Jindal, Mumbai vs. Dy Comm of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 203/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews

Section 142ASection 143(2)Section 148Section 234ASection 56(2)(vii)

said property u/s 142A of the Act on 09.03.2022. The District Valuation Officer, Mumbai vide valuation report dated 20.04.2022 determined the fair market value of the said purchased property at Rs.7,09,37,033/- on the date agreement as on 23.06.2014. The DVO has also determined value of the said ... assessee and added the difference between the P a g e | 3 Mrs.Ruchita Jindal Vs. DCIT, CC 3(3) purchase price and fair market value of the property determined by the DVO as on the date of agreement and added the amount of Rs.9,37,033/- to the total income

Shankar Dayal HUF, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-30(7), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2200/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Singhavi, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ram Dhan Meena, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 251(1)(a)Section 50CSection 54E

actual consideration received for sale of property is arbitrary and misconceived. 3.2 That the transaction of sale of property being made at fair market value as determined by the certified valuer, the addition made by the CPC in terms of provisions of section 50C of the Act without making reference ... Further, the assessee has transacted this property sale transaction after getting the property valued form a registered valuer which has computed the fair market value as Rs. 11,73,02,000/- and the same being a distress sale is in close proximity to actual sale consideration

ACIT, Central Circle- 16, New Delhi vs. Kamlesh Kumar Rathi, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 823/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri J.S. Minhas, CIT/DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 2(14)Section 68

response to the show cause notice issued, the assessee submitted that the valuation report found at the considered to be representing the fair market value of the land. 5. Without prejudice, the assessee submitted that the lands sold are in the nature of agricultural land located at Surajpur, Uttar Pradesh ... incriminating material. Thus, he submitted, when there are clear evidences on record to indicate that the declared sale consideration is much below the fair market value, the fact that the assessee has received on-money is proved. He submitted, since the on-money received is undisclosed income

ACIT, Central Circle- 16, New Delhi vs. Kamlesh Kumar Rathi, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 822/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri J.S. Minhas, CIT/DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 2(14)Section 68

Swati Atul Kadakia, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 338/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleswati Atul Kadakia V. Income Tax Officer – 16(3)(1) Room No. 447 1302, Vasant Aradhana Tower Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Lines Mahavir Nagar, Kandivali (W) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400067 Pan: Aabpk8725D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(x)

Pmp Auto Components P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 7(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in AY 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 587/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 92B(1)

that the transaction of purchase of shares by the respondent of its subsidiary company i.e. A.E. at a price much higher than its fair market value would be international transaction as defined in Section 92(B) of the Act. The only issue before us as considered by the impugned order ... respondent assess are on capital account. The revenue is seeking to bring the difference between the actual investment of Rs. 2.67 Crores and fair market value of the shares (investment) at Rs. 8.13 lakhs i.e. Rs. 2.58 Crores to tax. This without being able to specify under which substantive provision

Thr Infrastructure Pte Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Cir.-3(1)(1), Intl Tax, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1915/DEL/2022[201-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

which the sale consideration of INR 2444 per CCD’s can be substantiated. 5.1 The Ld. AO has grossly erred in alleging the fair market value was lower of CCD without appreciating that the same is backed-up with the 4 THR Infrastructure Pte. Ltd. report of a reputed independent ... Appellant. 5.3 The Ld. AO failed to appreciate that the Ld. Panel has not provided any observation or direction to verify the fair market value of CCD. 6. The Ld. AO and the Ld. Panel grossly erred on facts and in law in treating the transaction of sale

ACIT Circle-10(1), New Delhi vs. Gamma Pizzakraft (Overseas) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1309/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. T. M. Shiva Kumar, Adv. &For Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 31(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

obtained a valuation report from the Chartered Accountant as required under Rule 11UA(2)(b) of IT Rules, 1963 who had certified the fair market value (‘FMV’) of unquoted equity share of the company to be Rs.65.65 per share by adopting Discounted Free Cash Flow Method (“DCF”) for valuing ... assessee, the ld. CIT(A) diligently raised the following issues: i. Whether AO was correct in rejecting the DCF method and the fair market value (FMV) determined under DCF method by comparing the actual performance figures with the projections used under the DCF method. ii. Whether the AO can change

ACIT, Circle- 4(1), Gurgaon vs. Lemon Tree Land and Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 3749/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT- DR

Section 3Section 36Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)

Price (,ALP') of 14.55% calculated by Transfer Pricing Officer in A Y 2013-14 with respect to interest paid to the Shareholders, as fair market value for working out disallowance u/s. 40A(2) of the ITA for A Y 2014-15. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) grossly ... opinion that what has to be seen is whether the expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the facilities for these payments made. The ld. CIT(A) found that there is no dispute that the persons to whom interest has been paid are covered

Lemon Tree Land and Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Gurgaon

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

ITA 3087/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT- DR

Section 3Section 36Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)

Vijay Kumar, Meerut vs. DCIT, CC, Gzbd

In the result, both appeals of the different assessees are allowed

ITA 26/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 14Section 234ASection 271ASection 56(2)(vii)

before any Assessing Officer that the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer; (b) the value so adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority under

Vinit Kumar, Meerut vs. DCIT, CC, Ghaziabad

In the result, both appeals of the different assessees are allowed

ITA 24/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 14Section 234ASection 271ASection 56(2)(vii)