9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (7) TMI 9 - HC - Income TaxValuation of Immovable Property Annual Letting Value (A.L.V.) Report of Competent Valuation Officer HC uphold the annual letting value as per the report of competent valuation officer as held by ITAT
Issues:
1. Determination of annual letting value for Ganga Kuti property. 2. Determination of annual letting value for Juhu Bombay property. Issue 1: Determination of annual letting value for Ganga Kuti property The appeal under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 questioned the correctness of the Annual Letting Value (ALV) of the Ganga Kuti property. The assessing officer initially set the ALV at Rs. 6,20,000, which was contested by the assessee and eventually reduced to Rs. 32,000 by the Tribunal. The respondent had a 1/27 share in the property, and the ALV disclosure by the assessee was at Rs. 32,000. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by a previous judgment in the case of CIT Kanpur Vs. J.K.Bankers, Kanpur, where the ALV for Ganga Kuti was established at Rs. 32,000. Consequently, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision regarding the ALV of Ganga Kuti at Rs. 32,000, dismissing the appeal. Issue 2: Determination of annual letting value for Juhu Bombay property The second issue pertained to the determination of the ALV for the Juhu Bombay property. The assessing officer initially assessed the ALV at Rs. 5,37,200, which was reduced to Rs. 81,885 by the C.I.T.(Appeals) and further reduced to Rs. 4,200 by the Tribunal. The respondent disclosed the ALV for Juhu Bombay property at Rs. 4,200. The High Court referred to a previous judgment in the case of Juhu Bombay, where the ALV was set at Rs. 4,200. Following this precedent, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision on the ALV for Juhu Bombay property at Rs. 4,200, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. In conclusion, the High Court's judgment addressed the issues surrounding the determination of the annual letting values for the Ganga Kuti and Juhu Bombay properties. The decision was guided by previous judgments establishing the ALV for both properties, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.
|
