9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Whether a deduction of 10% should be allowed on the property owned by co-owners when the valuation is made on the rental capitalization method. Analysis: The judgment pertains to references under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, where the main issue is whether a deduction of 10% should be allowed on the property owned by co-owners even when the valuation is determined using the rental capitalization method. The assessee, a co-owner of a property consisting of a shop building and a godown with appurtenant land, had the value of the property assessed by the Wealth-tax Officer at Rs. 4,69,000 using a multiple of 11.11. The Tribunal, however, determined that a multiple of 10 would suffice for the fair market value and allowed a 10% deduction on the valuation since the property is a co-owner's share. The Tribunal's decision was based on its previous order in a similar case where a 10% allowance was typically permitted for co-owner's shares. The primary contention raised was that allowing a 10% deduction on the valuation determined through the rental capitalization method would deviate from the correct valuation approach. The Department's counsel argued that once the rent is established, and a suitable multiple is applied, further reducing the fair market value by 10% solely because the assessee is a co-owner would distort the valuation process. Section 7 of the Wealth-tax Act mandates that the value of assets, excluding cash, should be estimated based on the price it would fetch in the open market on the valuation date. The valuation of immovable property through the rental capitalization method involves determining the annual rental value and capitalizing it with a multiplier, without provision for additional deductions. However, the court acknowledged that while determining the fair market value of a co-owner's share, inherent disadvantages and limitations exist compared to absolute ownership. Citing precedents and expert opinions, including observations from the Calcutta High Court and textbook references, the court recognized that a share in a property is less attractive to investors due to limited control, warranting a deduction of around 10% from the estimated value of the share. This principle, widely accepted by courts and experts, aims to address the challenges associated with enjoying an undivided share in a property purchased in the open market. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of allowing the 10% deduction on the co-owner's share, affirming the Tribunal's decision and rejecting the Revenue's objections. In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the permissible deduction of 10% on the valuation of a property owned by co-owners when determined through the rental capitalization method, emphasizing the recognized principle of addressing inherent limitations in enjoying a co-owner's share.
|
