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

2015 (3) TMI 1065 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

2015 (3) TMI 1065 - ITAT AHMEDABAD - TMI - Addition on account of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on sale of open land on the basis of DVOs report - Held that:- AO is directed to delete the addition as Hon'ble Gujarat High Court decision HIABEN JAYANTILAL SHAH Versus INCOME-TAX OFFICER AND ANOTHER [2008 (4) TMI 292 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] is directly applicable in the appellant's wherein held AO could not have formed any opinion as to existence of difference between the value of the asset as claimed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

3-2015 - Anil Chaturvedi (Accountant Member) And Kul Bharat (Judicial Member) For the Petitioner : B.L. Yadav For the Respondent: S. N. Divetia ORDER Anil Chaturvedi (Accountant Member) 1. This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of CIT(A)-XV, Ahmedabad dated 20.12.2010 for A.Y. 2007-08. 2. The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under. 3. Assessee is an individual stated to be proprietor of M/s. D.S. Finance Corporation and Dreamland Party Plot. Assessee .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds:- 1. The Id. Commissioner of Income-tax (A)-XV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 70,16,582/-made by the Assessing Officer on account of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on sale of open land on the basis of DVOs report. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income- tax (A)-XV, Ahmedabad ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. It is therefore, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssee considered the value of the land as on 1.04.1981 to arrive at the cost of acquisition. A.O noted that for the purpose of valuation of property as on 1.04.1981, Assessee had relied on the report of a registered valuer who had valued the land at ₹ 25,10,000/-. On perusing the valuation report, A.O noticed that valuer had allowed a premium of 65% on account of proximately of the plot to S.G. Highway. A.O was of the view that the premium considered by the valuer was on a higher side becau .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing the valuation report, worked out the Assessee's share of long term capital gain at ₹ 1,54,84,045/- and after giving the credit of the value shown by the Assessee made an addition of ₹ 70,16,582/-. Aggrieved by the order of A.O., Assessee carried the matter before ld. CIT(A) who after considering the submissions of the Assessee deleted the addition by holding as under:- 5. During the course of appellate proceedings it was argued that sale consideration was not doubted by the A .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the value claimed by the assessee in accordance with the estimate made by a registered valuer is at ₹ 25,10,000. (b) And the value estimated by the DVO in his order u/s.55A is at ₹ 44,265 (c) The value estimated by DVO is not higher than the value estimated by the appellant as per government approved valuer's report. Therefore the assessing officer cannot take value as per DVO valuation report u/s.55A of the Act and the assessing officer has to take the value estimated by your ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pellant, wherein it was held:- "The estimated value proposed by the DVO is shown at ₹ 3,97,000 which.is less than the fair market value shown by the assessee as on 1st April, 1981. Therefore cl.(a) of S.55A cannot be made applicable. Clause (b) of S.55A can be invoked only in any other case namely when the value of the asset claimed by the assessee is not supported by an estimate made by a registered valuer." In the conclusion Hon'ble High Court stated as under:- "Conclu .....

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