2010 (4) TMI 1210

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... JUDGMENT Nagarathna, This appeal is filed by the Revenue by challenging the order dated 18.5.2005 passed in I.T.A. No. 1487/BANG/2002 on the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the Tribunal was. correct in holding that the comparative sale instance relied on by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Appellate Commissioner regarding property bear .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ay from comparison to that of vacant site situated on the main road and consequently recorded a perverse finding. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are, that the respondent assessee. who was the owner of a nursing home sold the same in April 1995 and offered tax on capital gains on the said sale and split the capital gains into long term and short term and in respect of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nce at the rate of 102.27 per sq.ft. and held that the said rate should be determined as the value of the site at ₹ 8,00,774/- as on 1.4.1981 for a total area of 7830 sq. ft. and therefore the difference in the value was disallowed and consequently the tax on capital gains was enhanced 3. Being aggrieved by the said order. the Assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Inc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f comparable instances from the office of the Sub-Registrar in respect of property bearing No.24, Ulsoor Village Road and therefore has stated that the property in the instant case would be at ₹ 102.27 per sq.ft. The said valuation in fact. was objected to by the Assessee by stating that the Assessing Officer had taken into consideration the property located in an interior area whereas the p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ct the true market value. It is also to be noted that the market value of a property is always higher than the valuation made by the Sub-Registrar. Therefore the Tribunal was justified in holding that the valuation as given by the Assessee has to be accepted as opposed to the valuation assessed by the Assessing Officer. 6. For the aforesaid reasons and on the facts of the present case, w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X