9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pole Bazar, Jaipur. During the year under consideration the assessees have sold the said immovable property for a total consideration of Rs. 26,00,000/- and Rs. 13,00,000/- for each ½ 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 Rs. 15,14,934/- of each ½ share as against Rs. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full. 4. The appellant prays your honour indulgences 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 stam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt", & finally the "restriction to use the premises. The registered valuer has also given various peculiar factors affecting the valuation 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I.T. Act which comes to Rs. 14,28,013/-. Accordingly, the AO directed to adopt fair market value of the ½ each share of 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 Rs. 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 purpos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
