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

Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh II Versus Mrs. Ravinder Kaur

2014 (8) TMI 1082 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Valuation of property - property jointly owned - retrospective effect of section 142A - Held that:- It was not disputed by learned counsel for the revenue that the husband of the assessee, Shri Paramjit Singh also had 25% share in the said property and in his case, the Tribunal had adjudicated the issue in his favour and accepted the valuation shown by him and the order of the Tribunal was accepted by the revenue as no further appeal was filed against it. In such circumstances, it would not be 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

SUPREME Court ) while adjudicating identical issue held if the revenue has not challenged the correctness of the law laid For Subsequent orders down by the High Court and has accepted it in the case of one assessee, then it is not open to the revenue to challenge its correctness in the case of other assessees, without just cause. - Decided against revenue - ITA No.240 of 2009(O&M) - Dated:- 21-8-2014 - AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND FATEH DEEP SINGH JJ. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act ) against the orders dated 16.6.2004 in ITA No.6/Chandi/2003 and 26.6.2007 in M.A.No.62/Chandi/2006, Annexures A.4 and A.5 respectively, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal ), for the assessment year 1994-95, claiming following substantial For Subsequent orders see ITA-241-2009 question of law:- Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the ITA .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

roperty in two assessment years i.e 1994-95 and 1995-96. The Assessing officer referred the matter to the Valuation Officer in order to ascertain the actual cost of construction, who determined the same at ₹ 23,73,012/-. For the period relevant to the assessment year 1994-95, the cost of construction was determined at ₹ 18,04,216/- as against declared at ₹ 10,75,348/-, thereby giving a difference in the cost of construction at ₹ 7,29,436/-. The assessee's share out of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ollowing its order dated 7.5.2004 in ITA No.837/Chandi/2002 in the case of one of the co-owner in the property. Since the decision as followed by the Tribunal was no more applicable in For Subsequent orders see ITA-241-2009 view of the insertion of new section 142A by Finance Act, 2004 with retrospective effect from 15.11.1972, which empowered the Assessing officer to make reference to the Valuation officer to determine the investment made in the construction of the property, a miscellaneous app .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ightly referred to the Valuation Officer and there was a difference of ₹ 1,82,359/- on account of assessee's share being 25% for the assessment year 1994-95 and ₹ 58,825/- for the assessment year 1995-96. 5. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal had relied upon the order in the case of Paramjit Singh, husband of the assessee while disposing of the appeals. It was urged that the assessee had 25% share in the property in dispute and once the department had ac .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

009 7. It may be noticed that the assessee had 25% share in SCO No.52-53, Sector 9, Chandigarh. Her husband was also a co-sharer holding 25% share. The assessee had declared the value of the cost of construction at ₹ 14,13,860/- as against ₹ 23,73,012/- assessed by the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO). The difference, thus, came to ₹ 9,59,152/- which on bifurcation between assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 came to 7,29,436/- and ₹ 2,20,176/- respectively. The 25% s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

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


|| 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