9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1080X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the cost of construction. This was the specific agreement between the parties. We do not think that an artificial exercise can be carried out, by which the market value of the constructed area can be determined and the same computed as the sale consideration which is not the specific terms of the agreement between the builder and the land owner. We need not look at whether the assessee kept the area assigned to him, for himself or sold it; which is irrelevant to determine the construction cost. In the context of the said question having been answered in favour of the assessee and the net result of the returns being a capital loss, the issue of exemption under Section 54 or Section 54F does not at all arise - decided against revenue - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, interfered with the value of the property as on 01.04.1981 and indexed cost arrived at for the purpose of computation of capital gains. There was also an interference to the sale value as projected by the assessee before the AO. 3. On facts, it has to be noticed that the assessee, along with one another, by name K.L.George, had ownership and possession of six grounds of property, three each. The total area of property possessed by the two persons was about 14,398 sq.ft. The assessee's share was 50%, which came to 7,199 sq.ft. In the assessee's portion of the property, there was a two-storeyed building. The assessee, along with K.L.George, entered into an agreement with a builder for developing the property and having a multi- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ificate dated 08.05.1987, in the year 1987. The Tribunal had looked at the evidence given in the paper book, being the value assigned to similarly situated properties, to affirm the market value prevailing in the locality. The Tribunal found it to be ranging from ₹ 3.5 to 4 lakhs per ground and that in such circumstance, there was no warrant for taking the value as construed for wealth tax purposes. The Tribunal also accepted the contention of the assessee that the value fixed for wealth tax purposes on the basis of rent capitalisation method is not always real. Based on the independent evidence produced by the assessee, the valuation of the property as declared by the assessee on 01.04.1981 was accepted by the Tribunal. We do not see ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... land owner is the market value of such constructed area; the value such constructed area would fetch if it is sold at that point of time. 7. We are unable to accept such a contention raised on the part of the Revenue. The agreement specifically shows that the consideration to the assessee is 31% of the built up area. What benefit accrues to the assessee is of no consequence. The builder only promised construction of a super built up area in a multi-storeyed complex and handing over of 31% of the area. The consideration which passed from the builder to the assessee is only the cost of construction. This was the specific agreement between the parties. We do not think that an artificial exercise can be carried out, by which the market valu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
