TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erty at ₹ 13,22,227/- for each ½ share of the assessee. Thus, it is clear that the determination of fair market value is subjective to the individual decision and therefore, to adopt a fair and proper value average of two fair market value determined one by the DVO and another by the registered valuer can be adopted as fair market value U/s 50C which comes to ₹ 14,28,013/-. Accordingly, the AO directed to adopt fair market value of the ½ each share of the property at 14,28,013/-. Disallowance of cost of renovation and brokerage charges - Each of the joint owner has claimed renovation expenses - HELD THAT:- Once the shop was used after the renovation for business purpose and the nature of expenditure is not any addition to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or each share of the assessee. The AO referred the valuation of the property to the DVO and after receiving the valuation from the DVO has adopted full value consideration U/s 50C of the Act at ₹ 15,14,934/- of each share as against ₹ 13,00,000/- declared by the assessee. Apart from adopting the full value consideration the AO has also disallowed the claim of cost of renovation, legal fees and expenses incurred towards payment of brokerage. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed. 3. Common grounds have been raised by the assessee s in these appeals the ground raised in ITA No. 450/JP/2018 reproduced as under:- 1. The impugned order u/s 147/143(3) dated 10.02.2016 is b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to add, amend or alter of or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing. 4. Ground No. 1 is regarding the validity of reassessment. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessees have stated at bar that the assessees does not press ground no. 1 and the same may be dismissed as not pressed. The ld. DR has raised no objection if ground no. 1 of the assessee s appeals are dismissed as not pressed. Accordingly the ground no. 1 of both the appeals of the assessees is dismissed being not pressed. 5. Ground No. 2.1 is regarding adoption of full value consideration as per the stamp duty valuation U/s 50C of the Act. The assessees have declared sale consideration of ₹ 13,00,000/- for each sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... luation and accordingly he took a factor of 15% each and applied as 60% valuation in comparison to a normal property. Therefore, he has submitted that the valuation determined by the registered valuer is near about the value adopted by the assessee therefore, no addition is justified in this respect. The difference in the value adopted by the assessee and full value consideration adopted by the AO is less than 15% which is within tolerance range up to 15% as considered by various courts. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Nilofar I. Singh 309 ITR 233. 7. On the other hand, ld. DR has submitted that the AO duly complied with the provisions of Section 50C of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the property at 14,28,013/-. 9. Ground no. 2.2 is regarding disallowance of cost of renovation and brokerage charges. 10. We have heard the ld. AR as well as ld. DR and considered the relevant material on record. Each of the joint owner has claimed renovation expenses of ₹ 1,06,500/-. On perusal of the relevant record, we find that the assessee has claimed expenditure towards the renovation work carried out in the year 2002. Thus, it is clear that this expenditure was incurred by the assessee just after purchasing the shop in question and thereafter the assessees have used this shop for their own business purpose. Accordingly, once the shop was used after the renovation for business purpose and the nature of expenditure is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
