Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2007 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (9) TMI 294 - AT - Income TaxIndexed cost of acquisition - Long-term capital gain from sale of immovable property - Disallowance u/s 48 - Expenses incurred on transfer of the asset. HELD THAT:- We are in agreement with the contentions of the learned counsel for the assessee that the reference to the DVO can be made u/s 55A of the Act only when the AO is of the opinion that the value claimed by the assessee is less than its fair market value. In the case on hand the DVO valued the property at Rs. 6,06,046 which is less than the fair market value claimed by the assessee and the AO accepting the same proves that the AO referred it to the Valuation Officer as he was of the opinion that the assessee's claim was more than its fair market value. Therefore, we are satisfied that the ratio propounded in the case of Ms. Rubab M. Kazerani v. Jt. CIT [2004 (7) TMI 649 - ITAT MUMBAI] is applicable to the case in hand. Respectfully following the decision, we dismiss this ground of appeal raised by the Revenue. Disallowance u/s 48 - Expenses incurred on transfer of the asset - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee's claim of incurring expenses for the transfer of the asset is accepted by the authorities below and the AO has allowed 50 per cent of expenses. The CIT(A) has restricted it to the actual payment made by the assessee. We find that the CIT(A) has considered the factual matrix of the case and also the bank account of the assessee to arrive at the figure of Rs. 10,70,000. It has also been observed that the expenses have been incurred out of the bank account of the assessee and out of the sale consideration received and that the other joint owners have not claimed any deduction on account of such expenditure over and above Rs. 10,70,000. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) as the assessee has not been able to file any evidence before us either, in support of her claim for the balance of the expenditure. In the result, this ground of appeal of the assessee is rejected. Cross-objection is partly allowed.
|