Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.19 seconds)
Maharaja Seafoods India P Ltd., Chennai vs Department Of Income Tax on 27 February, 2013 cites

Universal Plast Limited Etc vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Calcutta on 23 March, 1999

This fact is evident from the Annexure to the Auditors' Report for the period ended on 31.3.2005. In such like circumstances, where the assessee has no intention to revive its business and has leased out its commercial assets viz. land and building for earning income, the income has to be assessed under the head 'income from house property'. Our view is further fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Universal Plast Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India after examining various judgements on the issue concluded as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 85 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs J.Chelladurai on 13 December, 2011

13. In our considered opinion, where there is a wide variation in the fair market value and the guideline value, it would be appropriate if an average value is adopted. This method of valuation has been approved by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. J.Chelladurai (supra). In the said case, the assessee had relied on the certificate issued by Sub-Registrar where the value was determined at Rs.500/- per cent. The said certificate was later on found to be forged. The Assessing Officer determined the value at Rs.100 per cent . In such like circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court for computing capital gains adopted average of the value as adopted by the assessee and as determined by the Assessing Officer. In the present case also the CIT(A) has adopted mean value @ Rs.60/- per sq.ft. In 13 ITA No.1017 & 1018/Mds/2011 view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate that mean value adopted by the CIT(A) to determine the value of capital assets be approved.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 19 - P P Raja - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs J.V.K. Rao on 20 August, 2002

7. As regards ground no.2 relating to determination of capital gains, the DR submitted that the land in question is situated in Neelangarai Village whereas the value taken by the CIT(A) relates to Thiruvanmiyur which is part of Chennai. Therefore, the value adopted by the CIT(A) is not applicable in the present case. The land was purchased by the assessee way back in the year 1973. The Assessing Officer had ascertained the value from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Adyar, Chennai. According to which the guideline value is `3500 /- per ground or ` 1.46 per sq.ft. Since the guideline value as per Sub-Registrar's office is far less than the one claimed by the assessee, the cost of acquisition has to be determined as per guideline value. The DR submitted that neither before the Assessing Officer nor before the CIT(A), the assessee has been able to demonstrate as to how the value of ` 120/- per sq.ft. has been adopted by the assessee. The DR in support of his contentions, relied on the judgement 7 ITA No.1017 & 1018/Mds/2011 of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. J.V.K. Rao, reported as 258 ITR 90(Mad).
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 6 - R J Babu - Full Document
1