VittSphere ONE Calculators Blog CA Prabhakar Kumar · FCA · ICAI 560762
Case lawIncome-tax Rules 2026 › Rule 248
Rules 2026s.514

Rule 248 of the Income-tax Rules, 2026

Rule 248 — Charging of fee and submission of valuation report under section 514. Made under s.514 of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Where this rule sits

Rule 248 gives effect to Section 514 of the Income-tax Act, 2025. A rule cannot go beyond the section it serves: where the two seem to differ, the section governs.

← Rule 247  ·  Rule 249 →

What this rule does

Sub-rule (1), subject to sub-rules (2) and (3), sets a ceiling on what a registered valuer may charge for valuing any asset. The fees are not to exceed the amount calculated at these rates on a slab basis: one half per cent of the value on the first Rs. 500000 of the asset as valued; one fifth per cent on the next ten lakhs rupees; one tenth per cent on the next forty lakhs rupees; and one twentieth per cent on the balance of the asset as valued.

Sub-rule (2) provides that where two or more assets are required to be valued by a registered valuer at the instance of an assessee, all those assets are deemed to constitute a single asset for the purposes of calculating the fees payable to him.

Sub-rule (3) sets a floor: where the fees calculated under sub-rules (1) and (2) come to less than Rs. 5000, the registered valuer may charge Rs. 5000 as his fees.

Sub-rule (4) requires the report of valuation by a registered valuer in respect of any asset under section 514(3) to be in Form No. 170.

Why it is there

Section 514 provides for valuation by a registered valuer and for his report, but the valuer is engaged by the assessee and paid by him, which leaves the fee open to negotiation on a service the assessee cannot easily do without. The rule caps that fee on a declining slab scale so that a large valuation does not cost proportionately more, aggregates multiple assets so that the scale cannot be reset by splitting an engagement, and keeps a small valuation economic by allowing a minimum. It then fixes the form the report itself takes.

Who it applies to

The figures, and what each one turns on

Read the condition in the same row. A figure quoted without it is a wrong answer with a citation attached.
WhatFigureThe condition on itWhere
Maximum fee on the first slab1/2% of the valueOn the first Rs. 500000 of the asset as valued; this is a ceiling on what may be charged, not a fixed chargeSub-rule (1)(a)
Maximum fee on the second slab1/5% of the valueOn the next ten lakhs rupees of the asset as valuedSub-rule (1)(b)
Maximum fee on the third slab1/10% of the valueOn the next forty lakhs rupees of the asset as valuedSub-rule (1)(c)
Maximum fee on the balance1/20% of the valueOn the balance of the asset as valuedSub-rule (1)(d)
Minimum feeRs. 5000Where the fees calculated under sub-rules (1) and (2) are less than Rs. 5000, the valuer may charge Rs. 5000Sub-rule (3)
Aggregation for fee calculationAll assets deemed to constitute a single assetWhere two or more assets are required to be valued by a registered valuer at the instance of an assesseeSub-rule (2)

The forms it prescribes

What this means in practice

Sub-rule (1) is a ceiling, not a tariff: the words are that the fees shall not exceed the amount so calculated, so a lower fee is perfectly proper and the slab figures are the outer limit of what may be charged rather than the charge itself. The scale is slab-based, so each rate applies only to its own layer of value and the whole valuation is never charged at the first rate. Aggregation under sub-rule (2) works against splitting: several assets valued at one assessee's instance are treated as one asset, which pushes more of the value into the cheaper slabs and lowers the aggregate ceiling compared with valuing each separately. Sub-rule (3) is the one provision that lets a valuer charge more than the sub-rule (1) computation, and even that is permissive — he may charge Rs. 5000.

An example

Illustrative only, and invented for this page. The figures are chosen to show the requirement biting, not taken from any real matter.

A registered valuer values two assets at one assessee's instance, worth Rs. 40 lakh and Rs. 15 lakh. Under sub-rule (2) they are treated as a single asset of Rs. 55 lakh, so the ceiling is one half per cent of Rs. 5 lakh, plus one fifth per cent of the next Rs. 10 lakh, plus one tenth per cent of the next Rs. 40 lakh, that is Rs. 2,500 plus Rs. 2,000 plus Rs. 4,000, or Rs. 8,500 in all. He may charge that or less, but not more. Had the aggregate come to less than Rs. 5000, sub-rule (3) would have allowed him to charge Rs. 5000.

Where you meet this rule

An assessee meets this rule in the registered valuer's bill for a valuation, and meets the valuation itself in Form No. 170, the report furnished under section 514(3) in support of a value adopted or contested.

The words themselves

the fees to be charged by a registered valuer for valuation of any asset shall not exceed the amount calculated at the following rates
Rule 248(1), Income-tax Rules, 2026.
Where two or more assets are required to be valued by a registered valuer at the instance of an assessee, all such assets shall be deemed to constitute a single asset for the purposes of calculating the fees payable to such registered valuer.
Rule 248(2), Income-tax Rules, 2026.
Where the amount of fees calculated in accordance with sub-rules (1) and (2) is less than Rs. 5000, the registered valuer may charge Rs. 5000 as his fees.
Rule 248(3), Income-tax Rules, 2026.

What people get wrong

What this page does not tell you. It does not reproduce the rule. Everything above was written from the rule’s own text as the Income Tax Department publishes it — the text is here. A rule is subordinate legislation: it prescribes the method, the form or the period, and it cannot enlarge the charge the section imposes. Where a figure matters, read the sub-rule it comes from.