9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Reassessment under s. 59(b) of the ED Act 2. Valuation of immovable properties - Dal Factory and Oil Factory 3. Dispute over valuation methods and rates adopted 4. Appeal against the assessment and revaluation by the Appellate Controller 5. Comparison of valuations by the accountable person's valuer and the taxing authorities 6. Land valuation discrepancies and market rates 7. Cost of construction valuation and depreciation 8. Confirmation of the Appellate Controller's findings Analysis: 1. The judgment involves a reassessment under section 59(b) of the Estate Duty Act due to certain omitted items following the death of an individual. The revaluation of the deceased's interest in a partnership firm's immovable properties, specifically a Dal Factory and an Oil Factory, is disputed. 2. The accountable person's valuer valued the properties at lower rates compared to the market rates determined by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty. The Appellate Controller later found the initial valuation excessive, leading to adjustments in the valuation of the sites of both factories. 3. The Appellate Controller disagreed with the valuation methods and rates adopted by the accountable person's valuer, emphasizing the lack of detailed workings in the valuation report. The discrepancies in the cost of construction valuation and the depression in value due to limited marketability were also discussed. 4. The accountable person appealed the assessment, arguing for the acceptance of their valuer's report. The appeal involved a comparison of valuations between the accountable person's valuer and the Appellate Controller. 5. The judgment upheld the Appellate Controller's findings regarding the valuation of the land in both factories, considering historical purchase prices, market rates, and city planning rates to determine fair and reasonable values for the properties. 6. Regarding the cost of construction valuation, the judgment highlighted the lack of basis for the rates adopted by the Assistant Controller and supported the detailed description provided by the accountable person's valuer. The judgment confirmed the valuation of the cost of construction as per the valuer's report. 7. Ultimately, the appeal was partly allowed, and the assessment was to be modified based on the findings related to the valuation of the immovable properties and the cost of construction. The judgment confirmed the Appellate Controller's decisions on these matters.
|
