Latest Expert Exchange Queries

Make your inventory and invoicing software GST Ready from Binarysoft
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) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
Popular Search: articles on VAT and GST in India :: VAT Audit :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: TDS :: due date for vat payment :: cpt :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: empanelment :: form 3cd :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: VAT RATES :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes
From the Courts »
 Pr CIT vs. Shri Mahila Sewa Sahakari Bank Ltd (Gujarat High Court)
 Pr CIT Vs. PPC Business And Products Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court)
 Commissioner Of Income Tax Central-Iii Vs. M/s. Radico Khaitan Ltd.
 Mastech Technologies Pvt. Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central-3 Vs. Surya Vinayak Industires Ltd.
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central-3 Vs. J.H. Business India Pvt. Ltd.
 CIT vs. Bhushan Steels And Strips Ltd (Delhi High Court)
 Sumana Bandyopadhyay vs. DDIT (Calcutta High Court)
 Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Vardhman Industries Ltd.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Bhushan Steels And Strips Ltd.
 Pr CIT vs. M/s Veer Gems (Gujarat High Court)

ITO 16(1)-3,Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road,Mumbai. Vs. Savita Hemrajani, 203A, Sky Scraper,74, Warden Road, Mumbai-400 006
September, 19th 2012
                              MUMBAI BENCH `J' BENCH


                               ITA No.2864/Mum/2010
                              Assessment Year: 2005-06

ITO 16(1)-3,                                 Savita Hemrajani,
Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road,                   203A, Sky Scraper, 74, Warden Road,
Mumbai.                                      Mumbai-400 006
                                             PA No.AAXPH 8364 H
(Appellant)                                  (Respondent)

                             Appellant by : Rajarshi Dwivedi
                             Respondent by: Jayesh Dadia

Date of hearing:               6 .9.2012
Date of pronouncement:          14.9.2012


Per B.R.Mittal, JM:

       The department has filed this appeal for assessment year 2005-06 against order
dated 29.1.2010 of ld CIT(A) -27, Mumbai.

2.     The only issue involved in this appeal is as to whether ld CIT(A) is justified to
direct the AO to take the value of land as on 1.4.1981 as per the valuation report filed
by the assessee at the time of assessment proceedings though at the time of filing
return of income, assessee estimated the value at Rs.50,000 whereas the value
determined by the approved valuer as on 1.4.1981 was at Rs.9,24,700 as fair market
value because the said property was acquired in April, 1971.

3.     We have perused orders of authorities below and have heard representatives of
parties.   At the time of hearing, ld D.R. relied on order of AO and whereas ld A.R.
submitted that on identical facts, the issue is covered in favour of assessee by the
decision dated 30.11.2010 of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Mrs Gopi S Shivnani vs ITO,
133 ITD 172(Mumbai), wherein, it was held that the Act permits the assessee to adopt
the fair market value as on 1.4.1981 or the actual if it was acquired prior to 1.4.1981.
                                            2                            ITA No.2864/Mum/2010
                                                                       Assessment Year: 2005-06

Since the assessee chose to file the valuation report taking the value as on 1.4.1981
during the course of assessment proceedings when the AO chose to modify the sale
value as per section 50C, the assessee was well within her rights to choose the value as
per the provisions of the Act.    We agree with ld A.R. that case of the assessee is
squarely covered by the decision of ITAT in the case of Mrs Gopi S Shivnani (supra).
Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld CIT(A) and the same is upheld by
rejecting the ground of appeal taken by department.

4.     In the result, appeal filed by revenue is dismissed.

       Pronounced in the open court on      14TH September, 2012

                  Sd/-                                              Sd/-
              (RAJENDRA)                                       (B.R. MITTAL)
           Accountant Member                                  Judicial Member

Mumbai, Dated 14th September, 2012

Copy to:
1. The appellant
2. The respondent
3. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),27, Mumbai
4. Commissioner of Income Tax, City XVI , Mumbai
5. Departmental Representative, Bench `J' Mumbai

//TRUE COPY//                                                 BY ORDER

                                             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.
E-catalogue online catalogue E-brochure online brochure online product catalogue online product catalogue e-catalogue Indi

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