9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 977X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of Vadilal Soda Ice Factory Vs CIT [1970 (9) TMI 12 - GUJARAT High Court], and, therefore, as against valuation at ₹ 85 per square yard, he should have taken the same as at ₹ 110 per square yard as claimed by the assessee. As regards the cost of improvement, there is no dispute about the fact of the levelling having been done but the claim is declined only for want of evidences. In the case of expenses of this nature, i .e on levelling etc, it is not always possible to have third party evidences of expenses. The assessee is an individual and not a corporate. Keeping in view all these factors, and smallness of amount, we see no reasons to decline the claim. - Decided against Revenue. - I.T.A. No.: 3872 and 3873/Del/2013, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his. The assessee before us is a salaried employee with the Army Base Workshop. During the relevant previous year, he sold certain agricultural land. In the computation of capital gains on sale of the land, he adopted the fair market value of the land as on 1.4.1981 at ₹ 110, and accordingly, computed the capital gain at NIL. However, in the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer rejected this value so adopted by the assessee. He noted that in the case of another assessee, namely Jai Pal Singh, the Additional Commissioner has issued a direction under section 144A, by taking into account all the relevant factors, that the value as on 1.4.81 be adopted at ₹ 70 per square yard. The Assessing Officer adopted the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is indeed no error in rejecting in valuation @ ₹ 70 per square yard adopted by the assessee. However, learned CIT(A) was in error to the extent that solatium is required to be treated as a part of the compensation, for income tax purposes, in the light of Hon ble Gujarat High Court s judgment in the case of Vadilal Soda Ice Factory Vs CIT [ (1970 80 ITR 711], and, therefore, as against valuation at ₹ 85 per square yard, he should have taken the same as at ₹ 110 per square yard as claimed by the assessee. As regards the cost of improvement, there is no dispute about the fact of the levelling having been done but the claim is declined only for want of evidences. In the case of expenses of this nature, i .e on levelling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
