Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 1463 - AT - Income TaxComputation of long term capital gains - assessee is a non-resident and resident of USA. Mr.B Chitti Babu is the representative assessee in this case - FMV determination - A.O. adopted the value of SRO as per section 50C(3) of IT act and computed the capital gains as the DVO has valued the property for more value than the value assessed by the SRO - Held that:- DVO has valued the property after considering all the objections raised by the assessee before the DVO and the A.O. and valued the property at higher rate. Since the objections were considered by the technical expert and made the valuation of the property at higher rate no separate deduction is required to be allowed on account of the deficiencies canvassed by the Ld. A.R. Therefore, we hold that the A.O. has rightly adopted the value assessed by the SRO u/s 50C of the Act and accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the assessee’s appeal on this ground. Revision of cost of land i.e. Fair Market Value(FMV) as on 01/04/1981 at ₹ 200/- per sq.yd. against FMV as on 1.4.1981 @ ₹ 100/- per sq.yd. as per the guideline value seeked by assessee - Held that:- For arriving the FMV as on 1981 the correct method is guideline value, or the sale value of the lands in the area, or the authentic market information and the value declared by the assessee in her wealth tax return. The assessee has not furnished any information to substantiate that the guideline value was incorrect. The A.O. has adopted the SRO value in the case of the sale consideration as well as for cost of land (FMV) and the decision taken by the A.O. is consistent. In the absence of any evidence to establish that the land rate of the area was at ₹ 200/- as on 01/04/1981 and the market rate was more than ₹ 100/-, we hold that the FMV arrived by the AO is reasonable and do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) and the same is upheld. Computation of short term capital loss in respect of super structures - Held that:- on going through the assessment order, the A.O. has adopted the value of sale consideration as adopted by the SRO. No other evidence produced by the assessee during the appeal hearing to controvert the finding given by the A.O., therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the same is dismissed. Charging of interest u/s 234B & C - assessee is non-resident and resident of US and sold the property to the resident - vendee required to deduct the tax at source as per section 195 - Held that:- As relying on DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX VERSUS M/S. JACABS CIVIL INCORPORATED / MITSUBISHI CORPORATION [2010 (8) TMI 37 - DELHI HIGH COURT] assessee is not liable for interest u/s 234 of the Act to the extent of TDS to be made from the assessee. Accordingly, we direct the A.O. not to levy the interest u/s 234B of the Act to the extent of tax required to be deducted from the assessee by the purchaser. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is partly allowed.
|