9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Valuation of land plots, Co-ownership impact on valuation, Comparable sales valuation, Impact of property occupation on valuation
The judgment pertains to a reference under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, where the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred four questions to the High Court for opinion. The first issue was whether the Tribunal correctly valued large land plots based on the value of a small plot. The second issue concerned the impact of co-ownership on property valuation. The third issue was the valuation methodology for land not directly on Ashram Road. The fourth issue involved the significance of property occupation and ongoing litigation on valuation. The accountable persons argued that the Tribunal erred in valuing larger land plots based on a small plot's value, suggesting a 30% deduction was warranted due to size differences. Regarding Survey No. 39, the Tribunal was directed to value it at Rs. 1.37 per sq. yard, aligning with the accountable persons' valuation. Concerning Jamsie Villa's valuation, the Tribunal's approach was criticized for not considering the property's unique aspects and occupancy issues. The Tribunal's valuation at Rs. 1.50 per sq. yard was deemed inappropriate, and a 20% reduction from comparable sales rates was suggested instead. The High Court found the Tribunal's valuation methodology flawed, emphasizing the need to consider the property's specific characteristics and circumstances. The Court highlighted the impact of co-ownership, property occupation, and ongoing litigation on valuation, directing a more nuanced approach. Ultimately, the Court answered all four questions in favor of the accountable persons, leading to the disposal of the reference with no costs awarded.
|
