Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Asst. CIT, Cir-7, Ahmedabad Versus Smt. Rekhaben D. Contractor

2015 (10) TMI 1865 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

Reference made under section 55A to the DVO - addition on account of long term capital gain from the sale of plot - CIT(A) deleted the addition holding that the reference made to the DVO was without jurisdiction - Held that:- Similar issue came up before the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Shri Dipakbhai Shankarlal Contractor, husband and co-owner of the same property. The Tribunal, wherein held that ld. CIT(A) while granting the relief to the assessee had relied on the decision of Hiraben Jaya .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.1702/Ahd/2011 - Dated:- 24-6-2015 - Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav and Shri Anil Chaturvedi, JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri B. L. Yadav, Sr. DR For the Respondent :Shri S. N. Divetia, AR ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 26/04/2011 for AY 2007-08. The only effective ground raised by the Revenue in its appeal is as under :- 1 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

5, the property devolved on the assessee and her husband. Since the property would be considered as acquired prior to 1981, the assessee opted to value the same as on 1.4.1981 to arrive at the cost of acquisition. It was also noted that though the half share of the assessee was sold for a net consideration of ₹ 2,11,11,550, the property was not reflected in the balance-sheet of the assessee as on 31.03.2006. Further, no wealth tax return had been filed. A query in this regard resulted in t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

A) after considering the assessment order and the submissions of the assessee and by following the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hiaben Jayantilal Shah vs. ITO & Anr.310 ITR 31 (2009) (Guj) deleted the addition of ₹ 70,16,582/- by observing as under :- 2.3 I have considered the facts of the case, assessment order and appellant s submission. It is not in dispute that appellant was 50% owner of the land along with her husband Shri Deepak S. Contractor. The iden .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aben J. Shah versus ITO 310 ITR 31 is applicable in the case of appellant wherein it was held - The estimated value proposed by the DVO is at ₹ 397000 which is less than the fair market value shown by the assessee as on 1.04.1981. Therefore, clause (a) of section 55A cannot be made applicable. Clause (b) of section 55A can be invoked only in any other case namely when the value of asset claimed by the assessee is not supported by an estimate made by registered valuer. In the conclusion hon .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

assessee was required to disturb because prescribed parameters were fulfilled. 7. After going through facts of the case, the AO is directed to delete the addition as honourable Gujarat High Court decision 310 ITR 31 is directly applicable in the appellant s case as mentioned in para -6 above. The value of the property was declared as per registered valuer s report by the appellant and the value estimated by the DVO was less than the declared by the appellant, therefore, 310 ITR 31 is applicable .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t be sustained. Respectfully following the decision referred above, the change in value as on 1.04.1981 made by the assessing officer is not confirmed. The addition is therefore deleted. The Revenue is in appeal before us. 3. The ld. DR supported the order of Assessing Officer and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has wrongly deleted the addition. His order may be set aside and that of the AO be restored. On the other hand, the ld. AR relied on the order of ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the ld. firs .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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