9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Treatment of estate as HUF property. 2. Valuation of deceased's house property. 3. Claim for exemption of Kunja Kanta House. 4. Disallowance of claim under s. 33(1)(a). 5. Disallowance of claim for exemption of vacant land. 6. Valuation of deceased's land at Bhubaneswar. 7. Valuation of shares from M/s Eastern Motors. 8. Inclusion of value of life policy. 9. Valuation of household goods. 10. Addition of bad debts to the principal estate. Analysis: 1. The first issue raised was regarding the treatment of the estate as HUF property instead of individual property. The accountable person claimed that the estate was succeeded as an ex-Ruler and should be treated as HUF property. However, the appeal was not admitted as the ground was not raised before the Appellate CED, citing the decision in the case of Gurjar gravures P. Ltd. 2. The second issue pertained to the valuation of the deceased's house property in Calcutta. The accountable person valued the property at Rs. 4 Lakhs, while the Departmental Valuer estimated it at Rs. 5,49,000. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' valuation based on the rental income multiplier method, considering the time difference in valuation reports. 3. The next issue was the claim for exemption of Kunja Kanta House, which was rejected as it was not considered a part of the palace by the lower authorities. The Tribunal agreed with the lower authorities' decision based on the location of the house and the evidence presented. 4. The fourth issue involved the disallowance of a portion of the claim under s. 33(1)(a) for two buildings in Cuttack. The accountable person claimed exemption for both buildings, but the Asst. CED considered one building as separate. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, stating that no evidence was provided to prove the buildings were a single unit. 5. The disallowance of the claim for exemption of vacant land attached to the Tulsipur buildings was the fifth issue. The Tribunal set aside the Appellate Controller's order and remanded the case for re-consideration based on further facts. 6. The valuation of deceased's land at Bhubaneswar was contested, with the accountable person claiming a lower value based on acquisition cost. The Tribunal agreed with the accountable person and estimated the value at Rs. 10,000. 7. The seventh issue was the valuation of shares from M/s Eastern Motors, where the accountable person disagreed with the valuation method used. The Tribunal vacated the lower authorities' order and instructed a re-valuation based on the appropriate rules. 8. The inclusion of the value of the life policy was challenged but upheld by the Tribunal, considering the lower authorities' decision. 9. The valuation of household goods was contested, but the Tribunal found the valuation of Rs. 15,000 to be justified based on the deceased's status. 10. The last issue involved the addition of bad debts to the principal estate, which was deleted by the Tribunal as the amount was deemed bad prior to the death of the debtor, and no recovery was possible.
|
