Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 52 (1.32 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Gauranginiben S Shodhan ... on 21 January, 2014

Ito, Jaipur vs Bajaj Udyog, Jaipur on 9 August, 2019

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gauranginiben S Shobhan Indl., Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that "Coming to the question of reference to DVO for ascertaining the fair market value as on 1.4.1981 also, we find that such reference was not competent, we have noticed that prior to the amendment in section 55A with effect from 1.7.2012 in a case, the value of the asset claimed by the assessee is in accordance with the estimate made by the Registered Valuer, if the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the value so claimed was less than its fair market value as on 1.4.1981. It would not be the case of the Assessing Officer that the value of the asset shown as on 1.4.1981 was less than the fair market value. Such clause, therefore, as it stood at the relevant time, had no application to the valuation as on 1.4.1981. We are conscious that with effect from 1.7.2012, the expression now used in clause (a) of section 55A is "is at variance with its fair market value". The situation may, therefore, be different after 1.7.2012.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 87 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Maheshchandra Chimanlal Raval vs Income Tax Officer-Ward 2(2)(3) on 25 April, 2017

9. Having heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, perusing the material on the record and even the reasons recorded to reopen the assessment for A.Y 2012-2013, it appears that considering the difference in the fair market value Page 19 of 24 HC-NIC Page 19 of 24 Created On Sat Aug 12 19:02:12 IST 2017 C/SCA/21635/2016 CAV JUDGMENT determined by registered valuer of the assessee and the D.V.O, Surat, it has been found that the value estimated by the registered valuer of the assessee as on 1st April 1981 was on the higher side and in variance with the fair market value which has resulted into escapement of income from assessment. 9.1 It is true that in the present case, there was a delay in supplying the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer and thereafter the assessment order has been passed on 26th December 2016. However, it is required to be noted that as such, the last date for completing the assessment was 31st December 2016 otherwise, the assessment was getting time bared and therefore, the Assessing Officer had no other alternative but to pass an order of assessment under Section 147 of the Act on 26th December 2016. Therefore, prima facie, it can be said that in the present case, the assessee had not followed the time bound programme/limit prescribed by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Puja Prints [Supra] and Page 20 of 24 HC-NIC Page 20 of 24 Created On Sat Aug 12 19:02:12 IST 2017 C/SCA/21635/2016 CAV JUDGMENT in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan [Supra]. However, considering the affidavit-in-reply and material on the record so also the order of assessment, it appears that in the case of brother of the assessee and the co-owner of the very land ie., in the case of Shri Ashwinkumar Chimanlal Raval, the Assessing Officer had determined/estimated, and/or considered the fair market value as on 1st April 1981 at Rs. 10,19,250/= and consequently, the assessment order has been passed in the case of co-owner of the very land in question estimating the fair market value at RS. 10,19,250/= as on 1st April 1981 and accordingly, the long term capital gain has been worked out. It is reported that in the case of co-owner of the very land in question ie., Shri Ashwinkumar Chimanlal Raval, the learned CIT [A] dismissed the appeal preferred by the said assessee, and therefore, the fair market value which was applied/estimated in the case of co-owner is required to be considered and applied by the Assessing Page 21 of 24 HC-NIC Page 21 of 24 Created On Sat Aug 12 19:02:12 IST 2017 C/SCA/21635/2016 CAV JUDGMENT Officer, even in the case of the assessee - being the co- owner of the very land in question, since there cannot be two different estimations of the fair market value as on 1st April 1981 with respect to the same land but in the case of different assessees/co-owners. Under the circumstances, now when the order of assessment is already passed, in the aforesaid peculiar facts of the case, we refuse to entertain the present petition challenging the order of assessment under Section 147 of the Act and relegate the petitioner to prefer the appeal before the CIT [A] against the order of assessment under Section 147 of the Act and keeping all the contentions/defence which would be available to the parties; more particularly available to the petitioner-assessee. If at this stage, the assessment order under Section 147 of the Act in the case of the petitioner assessee is set-aside, in that case, the same shall affect the case of the Revenue in case of the co- owner of the very land in question. As observed hereinabove, as such there cannot be two estimations Page 22 of 24 HC-NIC Page 22 of 24 Created On Sat Aug 12 19:02:12 IST 2017 C/SCA/21635/2016 CAV JUDGMENT of the fair market value as on 1st April 1981 in respect of the very land in question, but in case of different assessee/co-owner.
Gujarat High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Anil Jain, New Delhi vs Dcit, New Delhi on 16 January, 2018

3.5.1 We are bound to follow the ratio laid down in above decisions and accordingly the full value of consideration received by the assessee of Rs.2,50,000/- cannot be replaced by the fair market value of Rs.3,91,53,000/- determined by the Ld. DVO. But we also note that as far as transfer of capital assets being land or building or both are concerned, a special provision i.e. section 50C of the Act has been introduced w.e.f. 01/04/2003, which provides for replacement of full value of consideration in certain cases. The said section reads as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Kiritbhai Jayantilal Kundalia (Huf) vs Income Tax Officer Ward No. 2(4) on 8 August, 2016

Gauranginiben S. Shodhan Indl. (supra), the subsequent ascertainment of fair market value by the Asstt. Valuation Officer will not apply in the present case since the valuation of the property as per the valuation report of the government approved valuer is on the higher side. Had the valuation of the Asst. Valuation Officer been on the lower side, the matter would have been standing on a different foot. In that view of the matter, the authority ought not to have referred the matter Page 12 of 13 HC-NIC Page 12 of 13 Created On Fri Aug 12 00:48:15 IST 2016 O/TAXAP/1187/2008 JUDGMENT to the Valuation Officer by applying provisions of section 55 A of the Income-tax Act by reopening of the assessment. Thus, in view of the decision of this court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan Indl. (supra) and keeping in mind the above facts, the reopening of the assessment is not permissible. Therefore, the issues are required to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Accordingly, we answer the questions in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
Gujarat High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - K Jhaveri - Full Document

Shri Bharatkumar Jayantilal Patel,, ... vs Ito, Ward-2(2)(1),, Ahmedabad on 17 October, 2019

5. With the assistance of the ld.representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. We find that the dispute is with regard to calculation of cost of acquisition as on 1.4.1981 and the applicability of amended section 55A for making reference to the DVO. Assessee has declared the value for the cost of acquisition of the property as on 1.4.1981 at a higher value than the value determined by the DVO. The case of the assessee is that reference under section 55A(a) could be made only when the value adopted by the assessee was less than the fair market value, and in the present case value adopted by the assessee at Rs.900/- per sq.meter was much more than the fair market value of Rs.153 per sq.meter determined by the DVO. The question before us is, whether reference to the DVO by the AO for the valuation of the ITA No.2483/Ahd/2017 4 property was valid for the year under consideration. Assessment year involved is 2011-12. This controversy has been silenced by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan, 45 taxmann.com 356 (Guj). The discussion made by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in this connection reads as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next