9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 810X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the wealth tax return has also offered valuation of such properties. This was based on the valuation report of the registered Valuer estimating the value of the property as on 1st April, 1981. The Wealth Tax Officer did not accept this valuation which was partially sustained in appeal. The Commissioner adopted the standards of the sale of the property in the near vicinity at the same time. It was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... djoining plot. The assessee had worked out the value of this property at ₹ 56.93 lakhs (rounded off) as on 31st March, 2006. This was done by taking a valuation of the property as estimated by the Valuer as on 1st April, 1981 and thereafter, adjusting it for indexation. 3. The Wealth Tax Officer disputed this valuation and assessed the value of the property by applying the rate of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee also owned another immovable property in the nature of commercial building with respect to valuation of which also, the Wealth Tax Officer had objected. However, the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (A) deleted such addition which the Tribunal had confirmed. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the Tribunal and having perused the documents on record, we notice that the assessee had decl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the assessee had filed the return of income for the wealth tax declaring the value of the property based on earlier assessments. There was subsequent agreement to sell the property at higher value despite which the High Court held that the assessee could not be deemed to have furnished inaccurate particulars. 6. In case of CWT Vs. Sanghi Bros.(India) Ltd. (2008) 301 ITR 129 (MP) divisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
