Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Shri Bhaskar Krishnaji Barve (HUF)

2016 (6) TMI 553 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

Rate of land adopted for the period prior to 1981 for computation of long term capital gain - correct value to arrive at cost of indexation - Held that:- CIT(A) on perusal of the report of survey map submitted before him observed that assessee’s land has locational advantage with regards to the roads, civic amenities like schools, hospitals, offices, markets etc. Transportation in the form of auto-rickshaws and buses is available. Further, the land was on the main road and has its own potential. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r. in vicinity and also considering the facts and circumstances, CIT(A) rightly estimated the value of the land at ₹ 25/- per sq. mtr. as against the value adopted by the Assessing Officer at ₹ 2.23/- per Sq. mtr. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer was directed to adopt the value of the land at ₹ 25/- per sq. mtr. and compute the long term capital gain. Thus, this reasoned finding of CIT(A) need no interference from our side. We uphold the same. - ITA. No. 821/Ahd/2011, C.O. No .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) has deleted addition of ₹ 1,10,90,848/- made by the A.O. as the A.O. had not adopted the correct value to arrive at cost of indexation. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the valuation reports do not refer to situation of surroundings present during the year 1981 or earlier and has considered the same. 2.1 In C.O. No .....

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) erred in adopting the fair market value of the land sold by the assessee as on 1.4.1981 at ₹ 25 per sq. mtr. against ₹ 40 per sq. mtr. claimed by the assessee on the basis of report from a registered valuer furnished before the Assessing Officer. 3. Assessee had, during the year under consideration, sold agricultural land bearing Survey No. 46/1/3/1 admeasuring about 3 hectors and land bearing Survey No. 37 admeasuring about 6 hectors at Village near Rakholi on 19th May, 2006 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sing Officer did not accept the cost (fair market value) adopted by assessee and recomputed the capital gains chargeable to tax. The capital gains computed by Assessing Officer stood ₹ 3.17 crores break-up of which is as under: Particulars As per Asstt. Order Sale consideration 3,28,47,500 Less: Indexed Cost of acquisition 10,86,189 2,09,286 x 519 100 (Rs.2.23 per sq. mtr. X 93850 sq. mtr. = 2,09,286 Capital Gain chargeable to Tax 3,17,61,311 3.1 The Assessing Officer made impugned additio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ra and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa, had intimated that the prevailing rate at Rakholi Village as on 1.4.1981 was ₹ 2.23 per sq. mtr. (iv) That the appellant's brother had adopted ₹ 18 per sq. mtr. being fair market value as on 1.4.1981 for computing capital gain in respect of sale of agricultural land. (v) That, since no valuation report of a Registered Valuer had been filed the rate as indicated by the Sub- Registrar, Administration, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa of ₹ 2.23 p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

idered the same, CIT(A) has restricted the value of land at ₹ 25 per sq. mtr. and directed the Assessing Officer to compute the Long Term Capital Gain accordingly. 5. Same has been opposed before us by both parties; Revenue by way of its appeal and assessee by way of its Cross Objection. Ld. D.R. supported the order of Assessing Officer and submitted that there is no basis for CIT(A) to take value of land at ₹ 25 per sq. mtr. On the other hand, ld. Authorized Representative submitted .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he rate of land @ 2.23 per sq. mtr. This letter was not confronted to the assessee. The claim of Revenue is that the rate of such land has been arrived at after taking into consideration the prevailing rate in the entire Village of Rakholi. Ld. counsel for the assessee disputed the content of the letter from the Revenue Department, D & NH relied on by the Assessing Officer was not confronted to assessee. He submitted that a copy of the letter from the said Revenue Department dated 11.02.2010 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

unt of capital gains on the basis of information received from the office of sub-Registrar, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa and accordingly had taken cost of land @ ₹ 2,23 per Sq.mt. The legality of this process^ is not challenged by the appellant and only the rate of valuation is subject matters of appeal. Though the Assessing Officer then could have confronted this information with the appellant but it appears due to lack of time it was not done. This does not terms the addition made by .....

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 leveling work etc. The Valuation Report was prepared after the inspection of the site has been done by Shri Jayesh K. Dalal on 11.12.2009 and by Shri Talsi Lakhani, the other valuer on 23.01.2010. The AO also contended in the RR that the reports do not refer to the situation of surroundings present during the year 1981 or earlier. So the reports cannot be accepted at all. (iii) The appellant has also taken the case of Shrikant K. Barve, for A.Y. 2006-07 as a comparable case wherein the departm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y his valuation @ ₹ 40/-per Sq. Mt. However, it is also clear that the Assessing Officer has duly valued the land @ ₹ 2.23 Per Sq. Mt. and this also deserves merit". 6.1 The matter before us is with regard to rate of land adopted by the Assessing Officer for the period prior to 1981 for computation of long term capital gain. The Assessing Officer relied on the letter from the Revenue Department D&NH for arriving at the rate. Assessee also relied on the letter from the same R .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version