TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 1041X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any is engaged in the business of the constructing residential flats. The appellant undertook construction of the residential building known as Inder Tower Annexure A B, at Gokhale Road (South), Dadar, Mumbai. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2007-08, appellant company sold two flats for ₹ 80,00,000!- and for ₹ 42,00,000!- respectively. However, stamp valuation authorities have taken the value of these flats, for levy of stamp duty, at ₹ 61,40,820!- and ₹ 47,53,980!- respectively. Assessing Officer asked the appellant to explain why value of flat sold for ₹ 42,00,000/- should not be taken at ₹ 47,53,980/-, which is the value determined by stamp valuation authorities. Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITA no.6034/Mum./2009, order dated 31st May 2010, for assessment year 2006- 07, has, under similar circumstances, vide Para-2.4/Pages-6 7, held as follows:- 2.4 The case of the assessee before us is that the issue was covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessment year 2005-06 in assessee s own case in which the Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the assessee. However, we find that in that year the relief given by the Tribunal was only on the ground that provisions of section 50C were not applicable while computing the income under the head business . In this year the authorities below have not applied provisions of section SOC. They have only found that the sale value declared by the assessee is too low compared to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale value of other flats in the A Wing are comparable with minor differences. There are also major differences in the sale value of flats number 1 and 2 but these are located in B Wing and are lower floor flats and therefore situation is not identical with respect to fiats in A Wing and thus not comparable. However as pointed out earlier the discrepancy in sale value of Flat no.20 vis- -vis the sale value of Flat No.22 is wide and glaring which has not been explained by the Assessing Officer satisfactorily. Only before CIT(A) the assessee made a claim that the flat had been mortgaged and mortgagee as per terms of the mortgage deed was in possession of the flat which was the reason for low sale value. CIT(A) has not accepted the claim as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
