PTBP Web Desk

The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) has placed the recently issued Islamabad property valuation tables on hold following strong objections from real estate stakeholders who flagged inflated rates in several localities. This decision marks a significant development affecting property taxation and transfer processes in the Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT) and highlights the government’s responsiveness to industry concerns.

The tax authority announced that it will revisit and re‑evaluate the fair market values of immovable properties in Islamabad before finalizing the updated valuation tables. Until the re‑evaluation is complete or January 31, 2026 (whichever comes first), the older valuation regime will remain in effect.

This move comes after the FBR issued SRO 2392(1)/2025 dated 08‑12‑2025, which substantially increased the values of residential and commercial property in Islamabad. The updated rates were intended to align official valuation tables with actual market prices.

Previously, the FBR had revised valuation tables for the rest of Pakistan on October 29, 2024, but Islamabad was excluded due to a pending complaint with the Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO). Subsequently, the tax authority issued the new valuation table through SRO 2392(1)/2025 to cover Islamabad as well.

These valuation tables are critical because they are used to determine property transfer taxes, stamp duty, and related charges. Higher valuation rates mean higher tax liabilities for property buyers and sellers, which can significantly affect real estate transactions and investor sentiment.

stakeholders — including major Real Estate Associations — raised concerns that certain areas in the new tables reflected values significantly higher than actual market levels. This prompted formal requests for the FBR to reconsider the rates.

In an official announcement on Tuesday, the FBR acknowledged the objections from real estate players. The tax authority stated that, upon examining some of the cases, several of the issues raised “were found to be correct.”