9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee - ITA No.4226/Mum/2015, ITA No.4227/Mum/2015, ITA No.4228/Mum/2015, ITA No.4229/Mum/2015, ITA No.4230/Mum/2015 , ITA No.4231/Mum/2015, ITA No.4232/Mum/2015 - - - Dated:- 10-8-2016 - SHRI R.C.SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessee by : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi Revenue by : Shri R.A.Dhyani O R D E R These are the appeals filed by the different assessees against the order of CIT(A) for assessment year 2004-2005, in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the I.T.Act. 2. Since the grounds raised in all the appeals are common, therefore, all the appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, facts and circumstances mentioned in the case of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 01.07.2012 could not make a reference to the DVO u/s 55A when the value adopted by the assessee based on report of registered valuer was higher than FMV of land. Ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions 1. CIT -Vs- Puja Prints, 360 ITR 697 (Bom) (2014) 2. CIT -Vs- Daulal Mohta HUF, ITA No. 1031 of2008 dt. 22.09.2008 - Bombay High Court 3. ITA -Vs- Jyoti Construction Co., ITA No.2393/Muml2014 dt. 27.04.2016 - Hon. Members, J Bench, IT AT Mumbai 4. ITA -Vs- Rabinder H. Chhabra (HUF), ITA No.5511/Mum/2012 dt. 23.05.2014 - Hon. Members, 0 Bench, IT A T Mumbai 5. Hiaben Jayantilal Shah -Vs- ITA Anr. 310 ITR 31 (Guj) (2009) 6. The Finance Bill 2012, Bill No. 11 of2012. 7. On the other hand, ld. DR relied on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is an undisputed position that the value adopted by the respondent-assessee of the property at ₹ 3S.99 lakhs was much more than the fair market value of ₹ 6.68 lakhs even as determined by the Departmental Valuation Officer. In fact, the Assessing Officer referred the issue of .valuation to the Departmental Valuation Officer only because in his view the valuation of the property as on 1981 as made by the respondentassessee was higher than the fair market value. In the aforesaid circumstances, the invocation of Section 55A (a) of the Act is not justified. 8. The contention of the revenue that in view of the amendment to Section 55A(a) of the Act in 2012 by which the words is less than the fair market value is substituted b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
