Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.31 seconds)
Sunita Jain , Jaipur vs Assessee on 30 May, 2016 cites

Sunita Jain, Paschim Medinipur vs Department Of Income Tax on 6 November, 2015

No 5 ITA No. 847/JP/2012 Sunita Jain Vs ITO further construction was reported by the assessee's valuer or by the departmental valuer. After getting the DVO's report, the ld Assessing Officer again gave the reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The show cause letter has been reproduced by the Assessing Officer on page No. 3 and 4 of the assessment order. Before the ld Assessing Officer, the assessee submitted that the FMV valued by the DVO is based on estimation and difference between the sale consideration shown by the assessee and value determined by the DVO is less than 5%, therefore, it could be ignored because the DVO estimated the FMV. The assessee also challenged the FMV taken by the Assessing Officer from the DVO as on 01/4/1981. The assessee also submitted that indexation is required to be given from 1981 not from F.Y. 2005-06 on cost of improvement as well as FMV as on 01/4/1981. After considering the assessee's reply, the ld Assessing Officer held that the assessee requested to refer the matter to the DVO U/s 50C(2) of the Act. As per this Section, consideration is to be taken as per stamp value had taken for the purpose of registration. There is two valuation held from registered valuer given by the assessee and another DVO taken by the Assessing Officer as on 01/4/1981. The ld Assessing Officer decided to take DVO's FMV as on 01/4/1981 authentic than registered valuer.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Namita Sarkar vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 4 February, 2005

4. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. The ld AR of the assessee has submitted that it has been held by the ld CIT(A) that the assessee has taken FMV as on 01/4/1981 at Rs. 1,92,282/- whereas as per DVO's report, it was Rs. 1,28,700/-. Reference made by the Assessing Officer to DVO to department the FMV value as on 01/4/1981 was not found him justifiable. He further relied on the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Namita Sarkar Vs CIT (supra). The DVO at the time of inspection of property on 30/10/2011 had noticed that building had been demolished. Therefore, he also did not comment about further improvement to the impugned property.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next