Latest Expert Exchange Queries

GST Demo Service software link: https://ims.go2customer.com
Username: demouser Password: demopass
Get your inventory and invoicing software GST Ready from Binarysoft info@binarysoft.com
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: form 3cd :: VAT Audit :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: TDS :: due date for vat payment :: cpt :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: empanelment :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: VAT RATES :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS
 
 
From the Courts »
 Radico Nv Distilleries Maharashtra Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-Iii, New Delhi & ORS.
  Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court)
  Dayawanti vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
  Claris Life Sciences Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) (Special Bench)
 Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court)
 CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini (Supreme Court)
 Dayawanti vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
 Claris Life Sciences Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) (Special Bench)
 Pr CIT vs. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 H. Naginchand Kincha vs. Superintendent of Police (Karnataka High Court)
 Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi-Ix, New Delhi Vs. M/s Arya Exports & Industries

Mrs. Lata S. Pinge Prasad, 4th Road, Santacruz (East), Mumbai 400 055 Vs. ACIT Circle 19(2), Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai 400 012
April, 10th 2015
                  IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
                         MUMBAI BENCH "A", MUMBAI

           BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
                  SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                   ITA No.4398/M/2012
                                 Assessment Year: 2008-09

           Mrs. Lata S. Pinge               Vs. ACIT Circle 19(2),
           Prasad, 4th Road,                    Piramal Chambers,
           Santacruz (East),                    Lalbaug,
           Mumbai ­ 400 055                     Mumbai ­ 400 012
           PAN: AAFPP 0792B


                (Appellant)                         (Respondent)


         Assessee by                 : Shri Hiro Rai, A.R.
         Revenue by                  : Shri Asghar Zain, D.R.

         Date of Hearing             : 19.01.2015
         Date of Pronouncement       : 08.04.2015

                                       ORDER

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

         The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order
of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the
CIT(A)] dated 04.04.2012 relevant to assessment year 2008-09.

2.       The sole issue taken in this appeal is relating to the determination of fair
market value as on 01.04.1981, of the property sold by the assessee during the
year under consideration, for the purpose of computing the taxable capital
gains.

3.       The assessee during the year sold a flat for a consideration of Rs.40
lakhs. The assessee took the fair market value of the property as on 01.04.81
at Rs.3,39,840/- and calculated the index cost of acquisition at Rs.18,72,518/-
                                                                    ITA No.4398/M/2012
                                       2                               Mrs. Lata S. Pinge


and returned the long term capital gains at Rs.21,27,482/-.            The AO
(hereinafter referred to as the AO), however, was of the view that the value
adopted by the assessee at Rs.3,39,840/- was on higher side. He therefore
referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer. The Departmental
Valuer ascertained the value of the property as on 01.04.81 at Rs.2,12,400/-.
The AO, therefore, adopted the said value and computed the long term capital
gains accordingly at Rs.28,29,676/-. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the
assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).




4.    The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee, held
that the action of the AO in referring the matter to the Valuation Officer was
justified and that the AO has rightly adopted the value as determined by the
Departmental Valuation Officer. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A),
the assessee has come in appeal before us.

5.    We have heard the rival contentions. The Ld. A.R. of the assessee has
contended that firstly the action of the AO in referring the matter to the
Departmental Valuation Officer was wrong and not justified as the fair market
value adopted by the assessee was more than that has been adopted by the
Departmental Valuation Officer.      Further, that the value adopted by the
Departmental Valuation Officer is quite lower than that has been determined
by the Registered Valuer appointed by the assessee, which is at Rs.3.54 lakhs.

6.    So far as the contention of the assessee that the AO was not justified in
referring the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer is concerned, we do
not find any force in the said contention, if the AO was of the view that the
value adopted by the assessee was not correct having regard to the nature of
the asset and other relevant circumstances, he may refer the matter to the
Departmental Valuation Officer.     The provisions of the statute cannot be
interpreted in a manner so as to make it redundant. We therefore do not find
                                                                        ITA No.4398/M/2012
                                             3                             Mrs. Lata S. Pinge


any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in holding that the AO was
justified in referring the matter to the .




7.       So far as the issue relating to the value adopted by the is concerned, we
may observe that the work of determining the fair market value of the property
as on 01.04.81 is based purely on estimation basis. The assessee has estimated
the same at Rs.3.39 lakhs, whereas the Departmental Valuation Officer has
estimated the same at Rs.2.12 lakhs and the same as per the Registered Valuer
appointed by the assessee has been estimated at Rs.3.54 lakhs. The Ld. A.R.
of the assessee has stressed that the assessee had adopted the said value at
Rs.3.39 lakhs as per the stamp duty ready recknor. Taking into the overall
facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the determination of
the value of the property is an estimate work only, we are of the view that the
interest of justice will be well served, if the AO is directed to adopt the value
somewhere between the value estimated by the assessee and the Registered
Valuer on the one hand and the Departmental Valuation Officer on the other
hand which we direct to adopt at Rs.3 lakhs. The AO is accordingly directed
to compute the capital gains by adopting the fair market value of the property
in question at Rs.3 lakhs.

8.       In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.




                  Order pronounced in the open court on 08.04.2015.


          Sd/-                                                 Sd/-
    (R.C. Sharma)                                         (Sanjay Garg)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                                     JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated: 08.04.2015.
* Kishore, Sr. P.S.
                                                                   ITA No.4398/M/2012
                                            4                         Mrs. Lata S. Pinge


Copy to: The Appellant
        The Respondent
        The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai
        The CIT (A) Concerned, Mumbai
        The DR Concerned Bench
//True Copy//                           [




                                                By Order



                              Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2017 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Company Overview

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions