9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n – Decided against Revenue. The entire expenditure was incurred by him on construction of such tenaments and for handing over to the tenants - he was to be compensated by F.S.I. so as to enable him to reimburse himself the cost of construction for rehabilitating to the tenant, does not mean that the expenditure needs to be deleted straightway - revenue has failed to bring any material which would indicate as to how much F.S.I. was made available and placed at the disposal of the assessee, how much was utilized in the form of making for construction of buildings for sale in open market and how much was actually sold and the income derived - in the absence of the vital material, the CIT and the Tribunal concurrently held that the deductio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing Officer with direction to reexamine the same in the light of its decision in respect of value of the property as on 01.04.1981? 3. On the fourth question, Mr. Malhotra submits that the assessee had claimed before the Assessing Officer that the cost of construction is an expenditure and that was incurred by the assessee on construction of tenaments in the new building for the purposes of handing over the same to the earstwhile tenants. Mr. Malhotra submits that the assessee was compensated by grant of additional Floor Space Index (for short F.S.I.), and therefore, there was no question of his claiming these expenses or cost of construction of flats. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer did not refer the matter to the valuation officer. Assessing Officer estimated the value and by holding that if the date of purchase by the assessee is 31st October, 1979, then, the value of the tenanted property cannot be increased to such an extent and as claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the tenanted property fetches low price. The tenanted property was purchased by the assessee but the same remained tenanted. None of the tenants had left the property as on 1st April, 1981. The Assessing Officer added 15% to the purchase cost and tried to determine the fair value. The matter, thereafter, was not though fit, to be referred to the Valuation Officer. The date of valuation was 30 years old. The Tribunal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
