Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.26 seconds)

Phool Chand Gupta(Huf), 1/90 ... vs Ito, Wd-4(2), Jaipur on 16 January, 2024

The valuation by 8 ITA No. 393/JPR/2023 Phool Chand Gupta (HUF) vs. ITO registrar was mechanically as per their norms without considering deficiency of land whether it was suffering from Ganda nallas, rocks, some part of land was 30-40 feet below the land level and it was unlevelled therefore it does not show correct market value of property. The registrar valuation does not show correct market value of property because they value the property as per rate of location of property but they do not take into account deficiencies of properties that i.e., nala, rocks, acquisition of land by JDA, levelling of land. Our land was suffering from drawback of acquisition by JDA, 2-3 Ganda nalas, rocks, non levelling of land. The all deficiencies reduce market value of property. The registrar has not considered these drawbacks in their valuation therefore there valuation is not correct and does not show correct market value. These difference does not show any escapement of income because all these shows deemed difference for which provisions of section 147 is not applicable. We have not paid any amount over and above the purchase price therefore no question of any income has escaped assessment. Merely because of stamp valuation authority has adopted a certain valuation for payment stamp duty on the property on the property purchased by the assessee the same cannot be a basis to conclude that assessee's income has escaped assessment, particularly when no tangible material has been brought on record to suggest escapement of income. learned AO is wrong and illegal in reopening of assessment u/s 147 on the basis of provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) because these provisions are deeming provisions and, on the basis, of DLC rate it could not be presumed that tax has evaded on any income because there is no actual income. Provisions of section 56(2) (vii)(b) are similar section 50C because both are applicable on difference in valuation of property by registrar therefore not applicale in case of reopening of assessment. Kindly therefore cancel the reopening proceedings and assessment order passed by AO on this basis.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vijender Kumar Jain & Sons (Huf), ... vs Assessee

The gifts have been given by Mohd. Shamim Khan to both the donees. The facts in both the cases are identical and, therefore, there is force in the submission of ld. Counsel that the decision of Tribunal in the case of Avinash Chand & Sons should be applied. No distinguishing fact has been brought on record by Department. I find that in the case of Avinash Chand & Sons (HUF) vs. ITO vide ITA No. 1463/D/2009 the Division Bench of Tribunal vide its order dated 23/10/2009 has observed as under: -
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1