← 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

Kirankumar Ramanlal Naik, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.18/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Hearing) Kirankumar Ramanlal Naik, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 415, Dabhi Street, Near Zanda Chowk, Ward-2(3)(2), Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mota Varachha, Surat – 395006. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 (""थ" /Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akcpn2062P िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rushin Patel, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 11/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 18/04/2023

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 55A

assessee. In view of the amendment to Section 55A(a) of the Act by which the words “is less than the fair market value” is substituted by the words “is at variance with its fair market value” is clarificatory in nature and it should be given retrospective effect. Therefore ... transaction. We are conscious of the fact the amendment to section 55A(a) i.e. substitution of the word "is at variance with the Fair Market Value" were inserted in the Income- tax Act w.e.f 1-7-2012 and the same is not applicable retrospectively. Thus, in our considered view

Veeresh Kumar Ramachandran, Kollam vs. The ACIT, Kollam

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

ITA 65/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year: 2016-17 Veeresh Kumar Ramachandran, House No.49/762, Dhanam, The Assistant Arayacham Veedu, Commissioner Of Income Vs. Kacheri, Tax, Kollam 691 013. Circle – 1, Pan No : Adypk7225J Kollam. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri R Sreenivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. J.M. Jumuna Devi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2023 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 28.5.2021 Passed By Nfac Delhi For Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. This Appeal Has Been Preferred Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals) Who Completed The Appeal Ex-Parte Assessing Long Term Capital Gain On Immovable Property In Which Appellant Had A Share. 2. Intact No Notice Was Served On The Appellant Thro Itba Module. A. The Assessing Officer Is Not Justified In Ignoring The. Comparable Case & Value Submitted By The Appellant In Total Disregard. Veeresh Kumar Ramachandran, Kollam

For Appellant: Shri R Sreenivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jumuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 250

appreciated the area of the land sold by your appellant and that of the comparable case & value adopted by her for determining fair market value. c. The enquiries stated to have been made by the Assessing Officer are all behind the back of appellant and cannot stand the test