Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.29 seconds)Section 142A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 48 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 260A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Smt. Raj Kumari Vimla Devi And Anr. on 15 February, 2005
The argument of the learned counsel for the revenue that the
Tribunal should have asked the Assessing Officer to make a reference to the
Valuation Officer under Section 142A of the Act does not require any
detailed consideration because CIT(A) had sent the evidence produced by
the assessee to the Assessing Officer for his comments. He conducted an
inquiry and asked the assessee-respondent to produce original bank
statement. Then he sent a reply to the CIT(A) authenticating the whole
transactions. Thereafter the CIT(A) and the Tribunal have accepted sale
consideration depicted in sale deed as fact. The assessee-respondent has
discharged the burden of proving the sale consideration as projected in the
sale deed. Moreover, the learned counsel for the revenue has not been able
to point out that the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in Raj
Kumar Bimla Devi's case (supra) has been challenged before Hon'ble
Supreme Court and the same has been rejected. The aforesaid view seems
to have acceptance of the appellant. It that be so then the principle of
ITA No. 653 of 2009 5
consistency would require that the aforesaid view be followed as the
correct view.
Section 23 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Jaw Ajee Nagnatham vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 25 January, 1994
In that case Allahabad High Court has relied upon the
observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jawajee
Nagnatham vs. Revenue Divisional Officer (1994) 4 SCC 595 to hold that
the Basic Valuation Register prepared and maintained for the purpose of
collecting stamp could not form the foundation to determine the market
value of the acquired land under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894. The burden of proof is always on the claimant to prove such a fact
and in each case the prevailing market value as on the date of notification
published in the State Gazette under Section 4(1) of the Act has to be
proved. The Tribunal also held that valuation done by any State Agency for
the purpose of stamp duty would not ipso facto substitute the actual sale
consideration as being passed on to the seller by the purchaser in the
absence of any admissible evidence. The Assessing Officer is obliged to
bring on record positive evidence supporting the price assessed by the State
Government for the purpose of stamp duty. The view of the Tribunal is
clear from para 7 of the its order, which reads thus:-
Section 69B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1