TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 1235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has submitted that the balance share which belonged to his brother and in his assessments, the cost of acquisition of the same godown has been accepted by the Revenue. Before us, no material has been brought on record to show that the valuation of the godown in the case of Assessee s brother has been challenged in appeal before Tribunal. We further find that in the case of CIT vs. Kumararani Meenakshi Achi [ 2006 (10) TMI 123 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has held that the differential treatment cannot be meted out to another co-owner while making the assessment of same property or while valuing the same property. In view of the aforesaid facts and relying on the aforesaid decision of Hon ble Madras High Court, we find no reason to interfere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken on 04.04.2001, whereas the godown was purchased on 16.11.1996. Therefore, re-valuation needs to be done. Further, as per loan papers, the loans were granted by the State Bank of India on 11.08.1997 whereas the assessee has claimed indexation from 16.11.1996 which is not appreciable. Moreover, the sale price as per sale deed dtd. 14.02.2007 is of Rs, 12500000/- lakhs; 1/2 share of the assessee should be of Rs. 6250000/- whereas it is shown by the assessee at Rs. 5334000/- only. Hence, the addition made by the AO should have been upheld by the CIT(A). 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noticed that assessee had sold a godown situated at Cuttak and had claimed capital gains. Assessee was asked to furnish the purcha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the house property income. The interest is on unsecured loans of about Rs. 30 lakhs and the bank loan is Rs,24 lakhs. The valuation report also estimates that the investment on the construction of godown is about Rs. 54 lakhs. Thus, the cost of acquisition of Rs.27 lakhs (appellant's share) seems to be in order. The assumption of cost of estimation at Rs.5 lakhs by AO is without any basis as in that case the cost of construction would work out to about Rs. 30.74 per sq. ft which appears to be too low to be realistic. The addition of Rs.37,43,606/- as long term capital gain is thus directed to be deleted. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before us. 5. Before us Ld. DR relied on the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that the balance share which belonged to his brother and in his assessments, the cost of acquisition of the same godown has been accepted by the Revenue. Before us, no material has been brought on record to show that the valuation of the godown in the case of Assessee s brother has been challenged in appeal before Tribunal. We further find that the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kumararani Meenakshi Achi (supra) has held that the differential treatment cannot be meted out to another co-owner while making the assessment of same property or while valuing the same property. In view of the aforesaid facts and relying on the aforesaid decision of Hon ble Madras High Court, we find no reason to interfere with the order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
