New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (6) TMI 145 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

2015 (6) TMI 145 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT - TMI - Capitalisation of rent - Held that:- In respect of the first property Tribunal noted that no comparable sale instance had been given and that there was no incriminating material which could justify the addition made. The Assessing Officer had added an amount of only ₹ 46,916/-. The Tribunal rightly deleted the addition.

Second property, Tribunal rightly observed that the DVO had valued the property on 18.11.2008 ignoring the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d 5% on account of self-supervision. The Tribunal, therefore, after balancing the factors reduced the addition to ₹ 1,61,542/-. There is no warrant for interfering with the discretion.

Last property the rent was taken as prevalent in the year 2007-2008. It was noted that by then the locality had become more prominent and had started fetching commercial value. The rent was fixed in respect of a lease granted in favour of a Multi National Company (MNC). The Tribunal rightly noted .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gainst the common order of the Tribunal dated 30.11.2010 allowing substantially the respondent s appeal against the order of the CIT (Appeals) confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 2. Both the appeals pertain to the assessment years 2004-2005 and 2006-2007 respectively. A search was carried out under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer had the properties valued by the Departmental Valuation Officer (in short DVO). The Tribunal upheld the matter having .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssing Officer had added an amount of only ₹ 46,916/-. The Tribunal rightly deleted the addition. 4. With respect to the second property, the Tribunal noted that the stamp duty had been paid on the current circle rate. The Tribunal rightly observed that the DVO had valued the property on 18.11.2008 ignoring the vital fact that the property was acquired in the year 2003 and registered on 03.03.2004 with the constructed house thereon. There was no evidence to support the addition. The same wa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version