Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2007 (9) TMI 294

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the fair market value claimed by the assessee and the AO accepting the same proves that the AO referred it to the Valuation Officer as he was of the opinion that the assessee's claim was more than its fair market value. Therefore, we are satisfied that the ratio propounded in the case of Ms. Rubab M. Kazerani v. Jt. CIT [ 2004 (7) TMI 649 - ITAT MUMBAI] is applicable to the case in hand. Respectfully following the decision, we dismiss this ground of appeal raised by the Revenue. Disallowance u/s 48 - Expenses incurred on transfer of the asset - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee's claim of incurring expenses for the transfer of the asset is accepted by the authorities below and the AO has allowed 50 per cent of expenses. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s an individual who filed the return of income declaring net taxable income at Rs. 86,75,610 which included long-term capital gain from sale of immovable property. During the assessment proceedings under s. 143(3) of the IT Act, the AO observed that the assessee has shown fair market value of property as in 1980-81 as Rs. 10,00,000 and indexed value in financial year 2000-01 at Rs. 40,60,000. The AO referred to the Valuation Officer under s. 55A of the IT Act vide letter dt. 5th Nov., 2002 to value the property for the purpose of determining capital gain tax. The valuation report dt. 11th March, 2004 was received from the District Valuation Officer-II determining the share of the. assessee's property at fair market value of Rs. 6,06,046 as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2005] 97 TTJ (Mumbai)(TM) 698 in support of his contention. 5. Having heard both the parties and having considered their rival submissions, we are in agreement with the contentions of the learned counsel for the assessee that the reference to the DVO can be made under s. 55A of the Act only when the AO is of the opinion that the value claimed by the assessee is less than its fair market value. In the case on hand the DVO valued the property at Rs. 6,06,046 which is less than the fair market value claimed by the assessee and the AO accepting the same proves that the AO referred it to the Valuation Officer as he was of the opinion that the assessee's claim was more than its fair market value. Therefore, we are satisfied that the ratio propo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... alling Rs. 15,40,000 as expenditure incurred in connection with transfer. The AO observed that the whole of the expenditure on the transfer of the bungalow has been claimed by the assessee which is not permissible. He observed that the assessee was the co-owner of the 50 per cent of the bungalow and the sale receipt is taken separately by the assessee and co-owners. The expenses against transaction should also be shared proportionately in the share of property. 10. On enquiry by the AO, the assessee submitted that the assessee being the head of the family, it was mutually decided amongst the family members that the obligation on behalf of the family will be fulfilled by the assessee and accordingly all the expenses were met by her. Howeve .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ted by the authorities below and the AO has allowed 50 per cent of expenses. The CIT(A) has restricted it to the actual payment made by the assessee. We find that the CIT(A) has considered the factual matrix of the case and also the bank account of the assessee to arrive at the figure of Rs. 10,70,000. It has also been observed that the expenses have been incurred out of the bank account of the assessee and out of the sale consideration received and that the other joint owners have not claimed any deduction on account of such expenditure over and above Rs. 10,70,000. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) as the assessee has not been able to file any evidence before us either, in support of her claim f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates