9911796707
Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Follow us:
|
Home
Issues:
1. Application of multiple in determining market value of the property 'Himanshu Bhawan', Jaipur. 2. Deduction of repairs and collection charges. 3. Deduction of a sum from the fair market value on account of declaration under the Voluntary Disclosure Act, 1976. Analysis: Issue 1: Application of multiple in determining market value The appeals addressed the controversy surrounding the application of a multiple in determining the market value of the property 'Himanshu Bhawan'. The WTO valued the property at Rs. 6,97,000, while the AAC reduced it by applying a multiple of 12. The assessee contended for a multiple of 8 times based on a previous decision. The Tribunal considered the evidence and grounds of appeal, concluding that a multiple of 10 times would be reasonable, citing a previous court decision. The market value was determined accordingly. Issue 2: Deduction of repairs and collection charges The AAC allowed a deduction of 1/6th towards repairs, which was deemed reasonable and in line with departmental practices. Regarding collection charges, the AAC's decision was upheld as justifiable. The assessee had to send personnel for rent collection and faced tenant disputes, justifying the 6% deduction for collection charges. Issue 3: Deduction on account of declaration under the Voluntary Disclosure Act A deduction of Rs. 50,000 from the fair market value of 'Himanshu Bhawan' on account of a declaration under the Voluntary Disclosure Act, 1976, was contested. The authorities initially disallowed the deduction, but the assessee argued for its allowance. The Tribunal held that the relief under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme is independent and statutory, thus should be allowed separately. The assessee was granted relief in all relevant years. In conclusion, some appeals were allowed in part while others were dismissed, based on the Tribunal's findings on the application of multiples, deductions for repairs and collection charges, and the allowance of deductions under the Voluntary Disclosure Act.
|
