Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.43 seconds)Ravi Kant Huf, Mumbai vs Ito Wd 23(4), Mumbai on 3 April, 2017
In the case of Ravi Kant vs.
ITO (supra), the Delhi Benches of the Tribunal while dealing with this issue has held
in para 9 as under :-
Shri Vijay Kumar Patni, Jaipur vs Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ... on 14 May, 2019
Bench of this Tribunal in case of Vijay Kumar Patni vs. ITO (supra) has again
considered this issue in para 11 as under :-
Suresh Kumar vs Town Improvement Trust, Bhopal on 3 March, 1989
the Act has postulated certain conditions. In the present case, the fair market
value estimated by DVO has been challenged as DVO's report has no basis,
because it has not discussed any of the factors, such as locality, situation,
general appearance in the area, availability of shopping and marketing
facilities, conditions of public ways and transportation, availability of utilities
etc. and etc. We have gone through the DVO.'s report, which is a cryptic one,
and the assessment is based on value as assessed by A.D.S.R., Sutahata and
that also on the basis of additional stamp duty asked for. If such is the
situation, there is no purpose for referring the matter to DVO reason being if
the DVO is to adopt the value taken by stamp duty authority, then he has not
applied his independent mind and that itself is based on irrelevant
considerations and germane considerations have not been considered while
assessing the value. Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled for determining the fair
market value, no doubt in the context of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but the
same holds the field even in the case of valuation to be made by the DVO.
Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the issue in Chimanlal
Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer AIR 1988 SC 1652, 1656-
58, in Suresh Kumar v. Town Improvement Trust, Bhopal [1989] 2 SCC 329
(SC) and in Land Acquisition Collector v. Sukhdev Singh AIR 1995 HP 150,
laid down following guiding factors:-