Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 1987 (4) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1987 (4) TMI 132 - AT - Income Tax

Issues:
1. Valuation of self-occupied property under the Wealth Tax Act.
2. Deductions for repairs and collection charges on a commercial property.

Issue 1: Valuation of self-occupied property under the Wealth Tax Act:
The appeal raised the issue of valuing a self-occupied property based on the Wealth Tax Act provisions. The argument was that the property should be valued as per the provisions existing at the time of the deceased's death, not at a later date. Reference was made to a Bombay High Court case and a Tribunal decision supporting this view. The Department argued against giving retrospective effect to the relevant section of the Estate Duty Act. The Tribunal noted the power of the Appellate Court to consider changes in the law and cited a Supreme Court case on interpreting statutes. The Tribunal analyzed the retrospective amendment to the Act and concluded that the value of the property should align with the Wealth Tax assessment. It directed the adoption of the value assessed under the Wealth Tax Act for the self-occupied property.

Issue 2: Deductions for repairs and collection charges on a commercial property:
The second issue involved deductions for repairs and collection charges on a commercial property. The Accountable Person argued for full deductions as per accepted principles, citing a case law to support the valuation method. The Department acknowledged the validity of some deductions but contested the lower value claimed by the Accountable Person. The Tribunal agreed with the Accountable Person, allowing full deductions for repairs and collection charges and applying the standard multiple for capitalization. It rejected the additional value for potential future construction, noting that the property was fully let out and not in the possession of the deceased. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Accountable Person, deleting the disputed amount and allowed the appeal on these grounds.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates