Capital gains tax (CGT) often forms a significant portion of the tax liability arising from real estate transactions. While calculating capital gains, property valuation plays a pivotal role—especially in determining the “cost of acquisition” and “fair market value” (FMV). However, taxpayers frequently face scrutiny and disputes from tax authorities questioning the declared value of the property. These challenges can lead to prolonged litigation, additional tax demands, and penalties.
To avoid such consequences, it is crucial to understand the basis of valuation-related disputes, the framework under Indian tax laws, and the strategies available to effectively defend one’s position before assessing officers (AOs), appellate authorities, and tribunals. This article explores the key aspects of defending property valuation challenges in capital gain cases and offers practical guidance for taxpayers and their advisors.
Master the complexities of capital gains tax, Click Here
Capital gains are computed under Section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The gains are the difference between the full value of consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer and the cost of acquisition/improvement, as adjusted for inflation (indexed cost, if applicable).
Capital gains tax disputes often arise when tax authorities challenge the declared valuation of a property during its sale or transfer. These disputes primarily stem from differences between the taxpayer’s reported value and the stamp duty value or other valuation benchmarks used by the income tax department.
In many cases—especially involving inherited property, assets acquired before 1 April 2001, or transactions involving related parties—determining the FMV or deemed consideration becomes contentious. Disputes usually arise when:
Let’s now examine how these disputes are tackled legally and practically.
1. Section 50C – Stamp Duty Value as Deemed Consideration
Section 50C allows the Assessing Officer to substitute the sale consideration with the stamp duty value (SDV) for capital asset transfers, where the SDV is higher than the reported sale value. However, the law provides relief if the variation is within a tolerance limit—currently 10% (20% for certain classes of properties or periods).
Further, the taxpayer can challenge the SDV by requesting a reference to a Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) under Section 50C(2). The DVO’s report is binding on the AO and the taxpayer, subject to appeal.
2. Section 55(2)(b) – Fair Market Value for Grandfathering
For assets acquired before 1 April 2001, the taxpayer may opt for FMV as on that date as the cost of acquisition. However, inflated valuations often attract AO scrutiny. Here too, a DVO reference may be made.
Want a deeper insight into the Income Tax Bill, 2025? Click here
3. Section 56(2)(x) – Taxability in Buyer’s Hands
If a buyer acquires property for inadequate consideration (less than SDV by more than 10%), the difference is taxed as income in the buyer’s hands under Section 56(2)(x). This triggers a dual-side implication—leading to increased scrutiny of valuation on both transferor and transferee.
4. Section 43CA – For Business Assets (Stock-in-Trade)
Similar to Section 50C, this section applies when a builder or trader sells land or building held as stock-in-trade. The SDV may be deemed as the sale consideration.
1. Obtain a Registered Valuer’s Report
When facing a valuation challenge, the first line of defense is to obtain a certified valuation report from a registered valuer, which serves as credible evidence supporting the declared property value. This report should comprehensively document the valuation methodology, comparable sales data, and any property-specific factors affecting its market value.
2. Keep Robust Documentation
Maintaining thorough documentation is equally critical, including sale agreements, payment receipts, bank transaction records, and historical ownership documents. These records help substantiate the actual transaction value and cost of acquisition, especially for inherited properties or assets held for long periods.
Step by Step Handbook for Filing GST Appeals, Click Here
3. Opt for DVO Reference When Necessary
If the AO invokes Section 50C, and the taxpayer disputes the SDV, proactively request a reference to the DVO. Courts have upheld that the AO must refer the matter to the DVO if the assessee so demands (CIT v. Chandni Bhuchar [2010] 323 ITR 510).
Taxpayers have the right to request a valuation reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer under Section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act. Judicial precedents have established that denying such a reference violates principles of natural justice, making this a powerful tool in challenging arbitrary valuations.
4. Demonstrate Genuine Market Conditions
In a declining or distressed market, if the property was sold at a lower price than SDV, gather evidence of prevailing market trends, unsold inventory, location-specific issues, or legal disputes that impacted saleability. These factors are legitimate grounds for deviation from SDV.
If the sale value is lower than the stamp duty value due to genuine market conditions, taxpayers should gather supporting evidence such as market reports, location-specific issues, or legal disputes affecting the property’s value. This helps justify deviations from standard valuation norms.
5. Highlight Realistic Construction Costs
For self-constructed properties, estimate the cost of construction based on prevailing rates during the period of development. Use CPWD or PWD schedules and support with bills or contractor agreements. Avoid arbitrary cost inflation without documentation.
6. Use Judicial Precedents Strategically
Several decisions have provided relief to taxpayers on valuation-related matters. For example:
Citing the right cases can help tilt the assessment or appeal in the taxpayer’s favour.
Know Practical Aspects of Tax Planning, Click Here
When disputes escalate to appellate authorities like the CIT(A) or ITAT, taxpayers must present well-structured arguments backed by documentary evidence and relevant case laws. Citing favorable judicial decisions can significantly strengthen the defense against unjustified valuation adjustments.
If the AO disregards the valuer’s report or DVO findings without sufficient basis, the taxpayer can appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] under Section 246A. The following should be ensured:
Further appeals lie before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), where valuation-related matters are routinely adjudicated.
Proactive tax planning remains the best preventive measure, ensuring property transactions are structured with proper documentation and valuation assessments from the outset.
To minimise risk of future capital gain disputes, consider the following during transaction planning:
Moreover, with the government increasingly focusing on data analytics and real estate transaction monitoring, clean and consistent reporting is key.
How to Audit Public Charitable Trusts under the Income Tax Act Click Here
Valuation challenges in capital gains are not uncommon, especially given the wide discretion available to tax authorities and complexities in property valuation. However, a well-prepared taxpayer—with sound documentation, credible valuation reports, and knowledge of the legal framework—can successfully defend against such disputes.
Strategically leveraging statutory remedies, expert opinions, and judicial precedents can ensure that legitimate transactions are not unfairly taxed under the garb of anti-evasion measures. In a rapidly evolving tax environment, awareness and preparedness remain the taxpayer’s best defense.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
