Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
« From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Inordinate delay in income tax appeal hearings
 Income Tax leviable on Tuition Fee in the Year of Rendering of Services: ITAT
 Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of Constitution to validate notices issued under section 148 as notices issued under section 148A. However the same shall be subject to amended provisions of section 149.
 ITAT refuses to stay tax demand on former owner of Raw Pressery brand
 Bombay HC sets aside rejection of refund claims by GST authorities
 [Income Tax Act] Faceless Assessment Scheme does not take away right to personal hearing: Delhi High Court
 Rajasthan High Court directs GST Authority to Unblock Input Tax Credit availed in Electronic Credit Ledger
 Sebi-taxman fight over service tax dues reaches Supreme Court
 Delhi High Court Seeks Status Report from Centre for Appointments of Chairperson & Members in Adjudicating Authority Under PMLA
 Delhi High Court allows Income Tax Exemption to Charitable Society running Printing Press and uses Profit so generated for Charitable Purposes
 ITAT accepts Lease Income as Business Income as Business Investments were mostly in nature of Properties

Cost of acquisition: Appeal to the high court - Fair Market Value as on 01 April 1981
December, 21st 2006

CIT vs Ina Guha
Citation 195 Taxation 301
Cost of acquisition: Appeal to the high court - Fair Market Value as on 01 April 1981

AY 1986-87. No substantial question of law arose from the tribunals order, which had accepted the approved valuers report for determining the fair market value as on 01 April 1981 since such value was a question of fact.

S.55 and s.260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 

High Court of Delhi

CIT vs Ina Guha

T.S. Thakur and S.N. Dhingra, JJ

ITA No. 798 of 2006

2 June 2006

Premlata Bansal, Adv. for the Appellant
None for the Respondent


(Shlu Narayan Dhingra, J.)

Appellant has approached this Court under section 260-A of the Income-tax Act 1961 against the order of ITAT allowing the appeal of the assessee against the order of the CIT (A). The sole question which arises from this appeal is as to what was the market value of the property of the assesses in the year 1981. This issue arose because the assesses inherited one third share in property situated at 13, Golf Links, New Delhi through a 'Will' of her mother in law. She sold this property in the relevant assessment year. The capital gain was calculated by the assesses taking into account the value of acquisition of property on the basis' of the report of a government approved valuer, who determined the value of land in the year 1981 at the rate of Rs.4600 per sq. mt. The Assessing Officer considered that the market value of the land as taken by the valuer was excessive and it should be Rs. 2000 per on the basis of L and DO rate fixed for that year for that area. The ITAT came to the conclusion that report prepared by the approved valuer, who was a technical person, should have been accepted by the Assessing Officer. There was no basis for the Assessing Officer to consider the land rate at Rs.2000 per The L and DO land rate notified at Rs. 2000 was for a slab of three years 1981-83 and it was for the purpose of determination of unearned profits. This land rate did not reflect true market value. Tribunal observed that rate of the land in a colony or area cannot be uniform and rate varies from plot to plot, depending upon its location and area. It was also observed that asssssee had relied upon a sale deed of nearby area i.e. 65, Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi, where land was sold @ Rs. 5791 per sq. mt. in the year 1985. Assessing Officer had not relied upon any sale deed. The Tribunal upheld the valuation report of the approved valuer and allowed the appeal holding land rate at Rs.4600 per sq. mt. for the year 1981.

We find that this appeal gives rise to only a question of fact, which has been decided by the Tribunal relying upon the relevant material and no substantial question of law arises for our consideration.

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2023 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting