For a long time, art valuation in India operated in a relatively informal ecosystem. Valuation reports were often created to meet immediate requirements—insurance renewals, documentation needs, or internal records—without much scrutiny around methodology, expertise, or long-term defensibility.
That approach changed decisively in 2025.
Across private collections, corporate holdings, and institutional portfolios, valuation practices began to face far greater scrutiny. Insurance companies played a visible role in this shift—but they were not the only drivers. Tax and capital gains–related considerations also began to surface more prominently, especially in the context of asset transfers, restructuring, and estate planning.
Together, these forces reshaped how valuation is approached, assessed, and relied upon in India.
This article examines what changed in 2025, why valuation standards tightened, and what this means for collectors, corporates, and institutions going forward.
Art Valuation Before 2025: A Loosely Governed Practice
Historically, art valuation in India was often treated as a procedural requirement rather than a professional discipline. In many cases:
- Valuation reports focused primarily on assigning a number
- The experience or specialisation of the valuer was rarely questioned
- Methodologies were not always clearly articulated
- Documentation such as provenance or condition reports was inconsistently included
As long as a valuation served an immediate purpose, it was often accepted without deeper review.
This environment allowed informal practices to persist—particularly for collections that had not been revisited or reassessed in many years.
The Insurance-Led Shift That Redefined Valuation Standards
One of the most visible developments in 2025 was the role insurance companies played in tightening valuation expectations.
Insurers increasingly began to require:
- Valuation reports prepared by experienced and expert valuation firms
- Clear articulation of valuation methodology
- Supporting documentation, including provenance and condition details
- Alignment between valuation purpose and reporting structure
In several instances, insurers requested fresh valuations even for artworks that had been insured earlier. This was not necessarily driven by disputes over value, but by concerns around credibility, defensibility, and risk assessment.
Insurance valuation, which had once been treated as a formality, began to function as a gatekeeper—raising the bar for what constituted an acceptable valuation report.
The Capital Gains and Tax-Related Shift in Valuation Scrutiny
Alongside insurance, tax and capital gains–related considerations emerged as a second, equally important driver of change in 2025.
As artworks increasingly came under scrutiny during:
- Asset transfers
- Estate and succession planning
- Corporate restructuring
- Declaration of capital assets
Valuation reports began to be examined more closely for tax and regulatory purposes. Authorities and advisors started paying greater attention to:
- How values were arrived at
- Whether valuations reflected fair market value
- The independence and expertise of the valuer
- Consistency with broader financial and asset documentation
Valuations that were informal, outdated, or weakly documented often became points of contention—leading to reassessment, clarification requests, or the need for fresh valuation altogether.
What became clear was that valuation was no longer just an insurance or documentation exercise. It now had direct implications for capital gains tax, compliance, and long-term financial planning.
Why Many Existing Valuation Reports Were No Longer Accepted
By 2025, several factors converged to make re-valuation increasingly common.
Time-based change: Art markets evolve. Artists’ reputations shift, demand changes, and market liquidity fluctuates. Valuations prepared years earlier often no longer reflected current realities.
Condition and conservation realities: Ageing, environmental exposure, storage conditions, and handling all affect an artwork’s condition—and therefore its value. Many older valuation reports did not adequately account for these changes.
Documentation gaps: Missing provenance records, outdated condition reports, or inconsistent historical values weakened valuation credibility when subjected to insurance or tax scrutiny.
Purpose mismatch: Valuations prepared for one context—such as internal records—were often reused for insurance, estate, or tax purposes, where far higher standards apply.
Together, these factors made re-valuation not an exception, but a corrective necessity.
Valuation Credibility vs Valuation Numbers
One of the most important shifts in 2025 was the growing emphasis on valuation credibility.
Stakeholders increasingly began to ask:
- Who prepared this valuation?
- What experience and expertise do they bring?
- Is the methodology defensible if challenged by an insurer or tax authority?
The focus moved beyond the number itself to the professional judgment behind it. Valuation came to be understood as an expert opinion grounded in knowledge, experience, and accountability—not simply a reflection of recent auction results or market sentiment.
This shift elevated valuation into a responsibility-bearing professional function.
What This Shift Means for Collectors and Organisations
For private collectors, the changes highlighted the importance of periodic review and purpose-aligned valuation—especially where estate planning or asset transfer is involved.
For corporates, valuation began to intersect more directly with governance, audits, and capital asset reporting.
For institutions, defensibility and documentation became central to stewardship and compliance.
Across the board, valuation moved from a reactive task to an ongoing strategic consideration.
Conclusion
2025 marked a structural turning point for art valuation in India.
Insurance-led scrutiny and tax-related implications together reshaped expectations around who can value art, how valuations should be prepared, and what standards they must meet. Informal or outdated valuation practices are no longer sufficient in a maturing ecosystem.
As valuation standards continue to evolve, collectors and organisations must adapt—by treating valuation as a professional, defensible, and ongoing process.
For a deeper, structured examination of these shifts and a practical guide to preparing for what lies ahead, readers can explore TurmericEarth’s Art Valuation in India: 2025 Review & 2026 Readiness Guide.
