9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1070X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax Act, 1957. 2. The assessee/appellant has taken similar ground in these appeals except amount of addition. Ground no. 1 & 3 in all appeals are general in nature which need no adjudication. Remaining ground no. 2 in all three appeals reads as under:- "2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of Rs....... made by the Assessing Officer in the value of land." 3. We have heard arguments of both the parties and carefully perused the record placed before us. Ld. assessee's representative submitted that in all these three appeals, the main issue involved is pertaining to valuation of land at Sultanpur Road, Tehsil Mohanlal Ganj, District Luck ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y 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 certificate of incorporation consequent on change of name dated 16.3.2008 by which the name of the assessee company has been changed from Sahara India Housing Corporation Ltd. to Sahara India Finance & Investment Ltd. w.e.f. the date of issuance of certificate. This certificate has not been disputed by the DR. 6. The AR further submitted a copy of the order dated 28.6.2013 of ITAT Delhi 'H' Bench in WTA No. 6, 7 & 14/Del/2012 for AY 2005-06, 2007-08 and 2008-09 and contended that the issue of valuation of same land which is involved in these appeals in hand has been decided by ITAT in favour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wers 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 counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, first of all pointed out that the valuation report relied on by the Assessing Officer was for assessment year 1994-95 as has been mentioned by the Assessing Officer at page 3 of the assessment order itself and, therefore, that report was not relevant for determining the value of properties as on 31.3.1993. Proceeding further, the assessee's counsel submitted that the immovable properties being used by the assessee for its business, the value of the same was to be determined as per Rule 14 of Schedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 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 asset being immovable property as shown in the account books of the assessee with a definite value." 14. In light of the above decisions, we are of the considered opinion, the issue involved in these cases are squarely covered by them. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) in these cases. Accordingly, we affirm the same." 7. On careful consideration of rival contentions in the light of ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
