Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (7) TMI 689

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re foot and has arrived at its FMV as on 1.4.81 at Rs. 44,25,600/- - Thus, the total cost of the property in question comes to Rs.64,30 lakhs - Held that:- Even as per the backward indexation by taking advantage of CBDT Circular No. 636 dated 31.07.1992 the value of the land as on 1.4.1981 would be around the same as determined by the Registered Valuer – Also, relying upon the decision in the cases ITO vs. Smt. Lalitaban B. Kapadia [2007 (9) TMI 294 - ITAT BOMBAY-K], value so claimed by the assessee is FMV of the Capital Asset – Decided against the Revenue. - I.T.A. No.313/Jodh/2010 - - - Dated:- 10-7-2013 - Shri Hari Om Maratha And Shri N. K. Saini,JJ. For the Appellant : Dr. Deepak Sehgal, CIT, D.R. For the Respondent : Shri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ely covered vide order dated 4th April, 2013 in the case of Deen Dayal Rathi, Jodhpur vs. Income Tax Officer - 3(4), Jodhpur in I.T.A. No.108/Jod/2013 for the assessment year 2009- 2010. Copy of the order was furnished which is placed on record. 6. In his rival submissions, the learned D.R. although supported the order of the Assessing Officer but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the assessee. 7. After considering the submissions of both the parties and the material on record, it is noticed that the present issue is covered vide aforesaid referred to order dated 4th April, 2013 wherein the relevant findings have been given in para 10 of the said order, which reads as under: "10. Regarding valuat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... divergent views about the same report in respect of land and building. If report regarding one is accepted, the other shall have to be accepted unless there are deriving reasons. In the given case, the demolition of the building cannot be such a factor, which can justify one conclusion. On that basis, the report cannot be accepted in part, and rejected in part. In our considered opinion, this action of the AO is not legally justified. Even as per the backward indexation by taking advantage of CBDT Circular No. 636 dated 31.07.1992 the value of the land as on 1.4.1981 would be around the same as determined by the Registered Valuer. The RV's report is annexed at Assessee's paper Book 26 to 32. He has adopted the land rates at Rs. 10/- per sq. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... This is a further way to square-up the impact of inflation for the period post 1.4.1981. Explanation (v) of Section 48 defines 'cost inflation index' as under :- "Cost Inflation Index", in relation to previous year, means such Index as the Central Government may, having regard to seventy-five per cent of average rise in the Consumer Price Index for urban non-manual employees for the immediately preceding previous year to such previous year, by notification in the official gazette, specify in this benefit". Likewise, para 35.6 of the Circular No. 636 dated 31.08.1992 reads as under:- "35.6. for the Financial year 1981-82, Cost Inflation Index is 100 and C.I.T. for each subsequent year would be determined in such a way that 75% of the ris .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ch as that before such reference the AO has not opined that the value so claimed by the assessee is less than the FMV of the capital asset, is also found to hold merit which is also supported by various judicial pronouncements. Following decisions will support our above conclusion: (i) Hibaben Jayantilal Shah vs ITO (2008) 6 DTR 203 (Guj) (ii) ITO vs. Smt. Lalitaban B. Kapadia (2008) 3 DTR 28 (Mum). (iii) Ms. Rubab M. Kazerani vs. JCIT (2005) 97 TTJ 698 (TM) (Mum) (iv) CIT Vs. Arihant Builders (2008) 6 DTR 185 (Raj.). Hence, we allow this issue in favour of the assessee." 8. So respectfully following the aforesaid referred to order, which was admitted to be applicable to the facts of the present case by both the parties, we do n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates