9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Valuation of immovable property using yield method, computation of annual letting value, determination of repair deductions, collection charges, expected yield for capitalization.
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT DELHI-D, the dispute revolves around the valuation of an immovable property in a commercial area in South Delhi, let out to Oil & Natural Gas Commission, using the yield method. The issues in question are the computation of the annual letting value and the number of years' purchase of the said value for capitalization. The disagreement primarily concerns the deduction for repairs and collection charges. The Valuation Officer allowed a 10% deduction for repairs and contested the assessee's claim of 6% collection charges, arguing that evidence supporting the claim was lacking. The CIT(A) considered the repair and collection charge deductions, directing a 1/6th deduction for repairs and a 6% collection charge allowance. The Department challenged these findings, asserting that the figures adopted by the Valuation Officer were more realistic. The Tribunal noted that repair and collection charge deductions should be averaged over several years, not varied annually. It upheld the repair deduction at 1/6th but reduced the collection charge allowance to 2%, finding the CIT(A)'s estimate of 6% unrealistic. Regarding the expected yield from the property, the Departmental Valuation Officer estimated 7-8%, while the CIT(A) estimated 12-14%. The Tribunal found the Department's estimate low for commercial properties but considered the CIT(A)'s estimate high. It emphasized that real estate investment factors in both rental yield and property value appreciation. Rule 1BB suggests a 9% yield for non-residential properties, indicating a more realistic expectation. Consequently, the Tribunal modified the capitalization factor to 100/9, adjusting the CIT(A)'s order. In conclusion, the Departmental appeals were partially allowed, with the repair deduction upheld at 1/6th but the collection charge allowance reduced to 2%. The cross objections by the assessee were rejected as they covered similar grounds already addressed in the arguments.
|
