Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2014 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (8) TMI 1043 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTDetermination of fair market value of the property - property purchased by the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 269 UD(1) - Appropriate Authority compared the proposed sale of said property with a sale instance of 1989 with regard to premises on a 1st floor property situated within the limits of Pune Municipal Corporation ( compared 1st floor property) - Held that:- In the present case the said property and the compared 1st floor property are not identical/similar in all respect i.e. compared 1st floor property is situated within the the Pune Municipal Corporation while the said property is outside the Pune Municipal Corporation . This by itself would be a factor which would make difference in the value of the two properties. As a property situated within the limits of Municipal Corporation would be beneficiary of various services made available by the Municipal Corporation which is not available to said property admittedly situated outside the limits of Municipal Corporation. The said property is an open land while the compared 1st floor property is a constructed property. This is a major difference and allowance should be made not only by reducing the cost of construction of the compared property but also other differences. All these would have to be factored in while determining the fair market value of the said property. This admittedly has not been done in this particular case. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable. It has been also pointed out that the impugned order failed to consider the market value of 3000 sq.ft. built up area to be given by the petitioner to the transferor society i.e. respondent No.4. This was being paid as part of the consideration for the purchase of the said property. However, the Appropriate Authority has only considered the cost of construction to arrive at the apparent consideration of the said property and not its market value. This alone would lead to proper determination of value of the said property. Petitioner handed over a letter dated 10 May 2012 from the Commissioner of Income Tax to the petitioner acknowledging the receipt of ₹ 39,48,339/- by the Appropriate Authority from the petitioner. The letter is dated 10 May 2012 is taken on record and marked “X” for identification. Counsel for the parties inform us that the amount of ₹ 39,48,339/- is the amount paid by the respondent revenue to the transferor respondent No.4 at the time of passing the impugned order dated 24 February 1995.
|