Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.34 seconds)The Coinage Act, 2011
Section 142A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 153 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Surat 2 vs M/S. Shreeji Prints Pvt. Ltd. on 27 August, 2021
In
the case of Pooja Prints (Supra), the assessee adopted the value of his
property at Rs.35.99 lakhs as a fair market value as on 1-4-1981 on
the basis of a valuation report. The Assessing Officer was of the view
that the value of property at Rs.35.99 lakhs as adopted by the assessee
was high considering the fact that it was purchased at a consideration
of Rs.1.45 lakh only 15 months earlier. Therefore, the Assessing
Officer referred the issue of valuation to the Departmental Valuation
Officer who valued the property at Rs.6.68 lakhs as on 1-4-1981 and
the indexed cost at Rs.33.20 lakhs. Consequently, the Assessing
Officer by his Assessment Order enhanced the capital gain of the
appellant from Rs.11.20 lakhs to Rs.1.61 Crores. On appeal the
Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. On
second appeal, the Tribunal held that in view of section 55A(a), it was
not permissible for the Assessing Officer to make a reference to the
Departmental Valuation Officer for the purpose of valuation, as the
value of the property declared by the assessee was not less than its
fair market value. On these facts, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court
held as given below:
The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957
Section 44AB in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Maruti G.Thopte,, Pune vs Income-Tax Officer,, Pune on 5 January, 2018
6.8. The appellant also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT
Pune in the case of Shri Maruti G Thopte Vs ITO in ITA No.
863/PUN/2017 dated 05-01-2018. In this case, the assessee filed his
return of income for AY. 2010-11 on 30.03.2012 declaring total
taxable income of Rs.59,019/-. Thereafter, notice u/s 148 of the Act
was issued on 25.03.2013. In response to the notice, assessee filed
revised return of income on 12.03.2014 declaring total income of
Rs.1,87,987/-. Thereafter, the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the
Act vide order dt.28.03.2014 and the total income was determined at
Rs.71,93,380/-. During the course of assessment proceedings AO
noticed that assessee had sold ancestral immovable properties along
with his three brothers for a total consideration of Rs.12,56,00,000/-
and assessee's share was 1/4th in the property. On the basis of
Valuation Report dt. 29.03.2012 of Shri S.P. Tayawade Patil, the
Government Approved Valuer, Sangli, the assessee while calculating
the long term capital gain had adopted the cost of acquisition of the
immovable property at Rs.1,15,99,280/- as on 01.04.1981. The AO
was of the view that the cost of acquisition adopted by the assessee
was excessive and hence not acceptable. He referred the matter to the
District Valuation Officer (DVO) for the valuation of the property.
The DVO vide order dt.07.02.2014 passed u/s 55A r.w.s. 16A(5) of the
Wealth Tax Act, 1957 determined the fair market value of the property
at Rs.51,000/- and accordingly, the assessee's share was worked out
at Rs.12,750/- (1/4th of Rs.51,000/-). AO on the basis of report of
DVO considered the cost of acquisition of the property at Rs.12,750/-.
Thereafter, the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide
order dt.28.03.2014 and the total income was determined at
Rs.71,93,380/-. Thus, the amendment to the Sec 55A of the Act was
made w.e.f. 01-07-2012 and the reference to DVO was made after this
date (as the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 25.03.2013). The
CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO saying that sec. 55A is
a procedural section and any amendment to the procedural section is
16
ITA No.824/PUN/2019
ITA Nos.931 to 933/PUN/2019
applicable from the date of amendment. It has no relevance to the
assessment year.