9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Valuation method for property assessment - land and building method vs. rental capitalization method. Detailed Analysis: The judgment was based on references made by the assessee from two orders passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the valuation of property for the assessment years 1974-75 to 1977-78. The primary question referred to the court was whether the switch from the land and building method to the rental capitalization method for property valuation was correct and justified. The assessee had constructed a godown on leasehold land and the valuation method in question was applied for the assessment year 1974-75, resulting in a significant difference in property value. The assessee contended that the valuation method adopted by the authorities was incorrect, arguing that the annual rental method was not applicable in this case. The counsel highlighted the absence of specific provisions for valuing commercial buildings before the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989, and emphasized the introduction of Schedule III for valuation of buildings on leasehold property. The counsel argued that this amendment should apply retrospectively from 1974-75, making the switch to the rental basis unjustified. The Revenue's standing counsel, however, pointed out that the new Schedule III introduced in 1989 did not apply to the assessment years in question. Referring to the Wealth-tax Act, it was argued that the market value of the asset should be assessed, especially when the property is rented out. The counsel cited a decision of the Rajasthan High Court to support the method of valuation based on annual rent multiplied by certain years of purchase. The court analyzed the contentions raised by both parties and found that the assessee had not specifically raised the application of rule 8(c) read with rule 20 of Schedule III for valuation. The court emphasized that the valuation of a commercial building rented out based on rental receipts by the assessee was not illegal. Additionally, the court rejected the assessee's argument for giving retrospective effect to Schedule III, stating that the provisions were not clarificatory in nature. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to use the rental capitalization method for property valuation, ruling in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. In conclusion, the court answered the question in the affirmative in favor of the Revenue, supporting the method of valuation based on rental capitalization for the property in question.
|
