9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1070X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ided against Revenue. - WTA No.01,02,03/Del/2011 - - - Dated:- 24-4-2014 - B C Meena And Chandra Mohan Garg, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri J J Mehrotra D R Rajan For the Respondent : Shri Sameer Sharma, Sr.DR ORDER :- PER : Bench These appeals have been preferred by the revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-I, New Delhi dated 29.10.2010 passed in Appeal No. 194/06-07, 272/06-07 and 508/06-07 for AY 2001-02, 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectively by which first appeals filed by the assessee have been partly allowed against the order of the AO passed u/s 16(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. 2. The assessee/appellant has taken similar ground in these appeals except amount of addition. Ground no. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... set which is not covered by rule 3 to rule 19 only can be estimated by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to value the land as per the observations of the Hon'ble I.T.A.T. in the case of M/s Sahara India Savings Investment Corporation Limited for the A. Y. 1991-92 to 1993-94 in W.T.A. No.1, 2 and 9/Alld of 1998 dated 14.9.2000 in which the Hon'ble Tribunal has held that in the case of business asset the value has to be determined as per rule 14 and not as per rule 20 of Schedule III. 4. The AR pointed out that against above order of the first appellate authority for AY 2002-03, the department has not filed any further appeal before the ITAT. 5. The counsel has also drawn our attention towards fresh cer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration Ltd. vs. ACIT for A.Yrs. 1991-92 to 1993-94 vide order dated 14.1.2000 has adjudicated the issue as under:- 12. We have heard the Ld. Departmental Representative as well as the assessee's counsel. The Ld. Departmental Representative first of all submitted that the Assessing Officer, while determining the value of immovable properties, has adopted the rates as declared in the valuation report furnished by the assessee itself and, therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in determining the value by exercising his powers under Rule 20 of Schedule III to the Wealth Tax Act and the CWT(A) was not justified in directing the Assessing Officer to take the value of immovable property as returned by the assessee. The coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r find that Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s Sahara India Savings and Investment Corporation Ltd. Vs. ACIT for A.Y. 1991-92 to 1993-94 vide order dated 21.9.2010 has concluded as under:- In this case we are concerned with the immovable property (land) being business asset of the assessee. The value of the immovable property, as business asset of the assessee has to be taken in accordance with the Rule 3 in Schedule III appended to the Wealth Tax Act. It is only if any condition under Rule 8 is satisfied, that the assessing authority could have referred to and determine the value under Rule 20. The provisions of Rule 14(2)(b) are not applicable to the present case as no depreciation is admissible to the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
