9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1803X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he AO is unwarranted, we, accordingly, direct the AO to delete the addition - Decided in favour of assessee Short term capital gain computation - Additions made u/s. 50C - DVOs report acceptance at its face value - property is an undeveloped property connected with a kaccha road with a slaughter house in the vicinity - HELD THAT:- Assessee s Valuation Officer has reported the rate for Plot No. 14/1 at 272/-per Sq. mtr and for Plot No. 177 at 261/- per Sq. mtr. The same has been taken by the DVO at 623/- and 722/- per Sq. mtr respectively. A perusal of both the Valuation Report shows that none of the report is based on comparable cases being sale deeds in or near the impugned properties. Thus, there is no sale incidence to support the value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aking up the facts of ITA No. 1441/M/2013. While scrutinizing the return of income, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee is having investment in shares, bonds etc at ₹ 70,15,05,138/- on which dividend income of ₹ 64,699/- was earned and claimed exempt. The assessee was asked to explain why disallowance should not be made u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D. 3.1. Vide letter dated 15.7.2011, the assessee replied that the dividend is represented by only one dividend warrant and direct and indirect expenses incurred in relation to earning of this exempt income amounting to ₹ 1,736/- have already been offered for disallowance. The assessee furnished a reasonable estimation of disallowance and computed such disallowance at ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O has simply rubbished this computation made by the assessee without assigning any specific reason or fallacy in the computation. In our considered opinion on the peculiar facts of the case, the addition made by the AO is unwarranted, we, accordingly, direct the AO to delete the addition of ₹ 35,07,782/- in ITA No. 1441/M/2013 and ₹ 9,27,033/- in ITA No. 1442/M/2013. With this ITA No. 1442/M/2013 is allowed. 8. The second ground in ITA No. 1441/M/13 relates to the additions made u/s. 50C of the Act. 8.1. While scrutinizing the return of income, it came to the notice of the AO that the assessee has sold 2 plots of land situated in District Aligarh (U.P). Details and copies of the deeds pertaining to the sale transactions were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... simply relying upon the report of the DVO. 9.1. After considering the facts and the submissions, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that sale price as per the sale deed was lower than the value assessed by the Stamp duty authorities therefore a reference was rightly made by the AO. The Ld. CIT(A) was convinced that the AO was correct in adopting the valuation of the DVO in computing the short term capital gains and confirmed the addition. 10. Aggrieved by this, the assessee is before us. 11. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated what has been stated before the lower authorities. It is the say of the Ld. Counsel that the assessee has also taken a valuation report from a Government approved valuor wherein the value adopted by the Valuation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Valuation Officer also cannot be accepted. 14.1. In our considered opinion, such litigation should come to an end and therefore to put an end to the litigation, the value for plot No. 14/1 taken by the DVO at ₹ 623/- is to be reduced by 40%, the value now should be adopted is ₹ 374/-. Similarly, the value adopted for Plot No. 177 at ₹ 722/- is to be reduced by 35%, the value now should be adopted is ₹ 470/-. The AO is accordingly directed to consider these two values and recompute the Short term capital gains as per the provisions of the law. 15. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 1441/M/2013 is partly allowed and ITA No. 1442/M/13 is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
