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: TDS :: form 3cd :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: VAT Audit :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: due date for vat payment :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: cpt :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: empanelment :: VAT RATES :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4%
 
 
From the Courts »
 R.L.Traders Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 47(1)
  Sc Johnson Products Private Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Special Range-8, New Delhi
  Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr CIT (Bombay High Court)
 Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr CIT (Bombay High Court)
 Bhushan Steel vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
 CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers Pune (Supreme Court)
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal : Kolkata Benches : Kolkata. Sub : Cause List For The Cases Fixed On Friday The 15/12/2017
 Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
 Sunbeam Auto Private Limited Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Sc Johnson Products Private Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Special Range-8, New Delhi
  Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd vs. Pr CIT (ITAT Delhi)

ITO-16(2)(1), Matru Mandir, Mumbai-400 007 Vs. Narendra Nath Kumar 171, Kshitij Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400 036
June, 27th 2014
                    ""   
     IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH, MUMBAI

       ,     . .  . . ,                                            ,                    
     BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND DR. S. T. M. PAVALAN, JM

                     ./I.T.A. No. 3884/Mum/2012
                    (   / Assessment Year: 2001-02)

ITO-16(2)(1),                                       Narendra Nath Kumar
Matru Mandir,                              /        171, Kshitij Nepeansea Road,
Mumbai-400 007                             Vs.      Mumbai-400 036

     . /  . /PAN/GIR No. AADPK 3579 K
         ( /Appellant)                        :            (     / Respondent)

         / Appellant by                      :     Shri Sambit Mishra

           /Respondent by                    :     Shri Reepal G. Traishawala

                    Date of Hearing          :     19.06.2014
                       Date of Order         :     24.06.2014

                                    / O R D E R
Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.:

      This is an Appeal by the Revenue directed against the Order by the Commissioner
of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, Mumbai (`CIT(A)' for short) dated 30.03.2012, allowing
the assessee's appeal contesting its assessment u/s.143(3) r/w s. 148 of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 (`the Act' hereinafter) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2001-02 vide order dated
29.03.2004.




2.    The issue arising in the instant appeal is the validity of the reference by the
Assessing Officer (A.O.) to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) u/s. 55A of the
Act. The subsidiary issue arising is qua the adjustment made by the A.O. to the assessee's
                                               2
                                                          ITA No. 3884/Mum/2012 (A.Y. 2001-02)
                                                                   ITO vs. Narendra Nath Kumar

returned long term capital gain (LTCG) on a consideration of the DVO's report, i.e., on
merits.

3.        At the very outset, it was submitted by the ld. Authorized Representative (AR), the
assessee's counsel, that the issue arising in the instant case stands covered by the decision
by the hon'ble jurisdictional high court in the case of CIT vs. Puja Prints [2014] 360 ITR
697 (Bom). Vide the said decision, the hon'ble court has since clarified that reference to
the DVO, which in the instant case was made by the A.O. for the purpose of determining
the fair market value, as on 01.04.1981, of the capital asset transferred could be, prior to
the amendment to s.55A(2) by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.07.2012, only where in his
opinion its fair market value exceeds the value of the asset as claimed by the assessee,
and that the amendment to the said Act, substituting the words `is less than its fair market
value' by the words `is at variance with its fair market value' in the said provision, would
only be prospective, i.e., w.e.f. 01.07.2012. In the present case, it is the admitted,
undisputed position between the parties that the A.O. considered the fair market value (as
on 01.04.1981) of the capital asset transferred as claimed by the assessee on the basis of
the valuation report by an approved valuer to be on the higher side, so that the same was,
in his view, at a lower sum. The said reference is thus not legally valid.

3.2       The ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on being confronted with the said
decision, conceded to the legal issue arising in the instant case as being squarely covered
by the said decision by the hon'ble jurisdictional high court.




4.        We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. Under the
circumstances afore-noted, we have no hesitation in holding, following the said decision
by the hon'ble jurisdictional high court supra, that the reference by the A.O. in the instant
case was legally not permissible. The subsidiary question afore-referred, which concerns
the valuation on merits, would therefore not arise for our consideration.
                                         3
                                                   ITA No. 3884/Mum/2012 (A.Y. 2001-02)
                                                            ITO vs. Narendra Nath Kumar

5.    In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed.
                 

    Order pronounced in the open court on June 19, 2014 at the conclusion of the
hearing itself.

              Sd/-                                  Sd/-
      (Dr. S. T. M. Pavalan)                   (Sanjay Arora)
         / Judicial Member                       / Accountant Member
 Mumbai;  Dated : 24.06.2014

. ../Roshani, Sr. PS

         /Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.  / The Appellant
2.  / The Respondent
3.     () / The CIT(A)
4.      / CIT ­ concerned
5.               ,     ,  / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6.     / Guard File
                                                / 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.
Publishing Management System PMS News Management System Publishing Management System Development Online News Management System for media company custom Publishing management system development Survey management system Market Res

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