TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court emphasizes rule 1BB for property valuation, overturns Assessing Officer's decision.</h1> <h3>Dr. Rajendra Kumar Agrawal Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax</h3> Dr. Rajendra Kumar Agrawal Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax - [2000] 245 ITR 18, 163 CTR 568, 132 TAXMANN 747 Issues:1. Valuation of property for wealth tax assessment.2. Applicability of rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957.Issue 1: Valuation of property for wealth tax assessmentThe case involves a reference under section 27(1) at the instance of the assessee regarding the valuation of a house property for the assessment year 1983-84. The assessee declared the property's value using a multiplier, while the Assessing Officer noted a sale of the property for Rs. 3 lakhs, leading to a dispute. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) directed the adoption of the value declared by the assessee, but the Tribunal reversed this decision. The Tribunal held that the value should be determined as per sub-rule (5) of rule 1BB, leading to the reference being made. The main argument was whether the subsequent sale price should be considered as the market value for the valuation date, or if rule 1BB should be applied.Issue 2: Applicability of rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957The Court analyzed the provisions of rule 1BB, which describe the method for valuation of immovable properties, and noted that the rule uses the word 'shall,' indicating its mandatory nature. Referring to precedent cases, the Court emphasized that if rule 1BB is applicable, no other method of valuation can be adopted. The Tribunal referred to sub-rule (5) of rule 1BB, which allows deviation from the rule under certain circumstances. However, the Court found that the Assessing Officer did not provide valid reasons for deviating from rule 1BB and mechanically adopted the sale price without considering crucial factors like vacant possession at the time of sale. The Court concluded that the Tribunal erred in setting aside the first appellate authority's order and invoking sub-rule (5) of rule 1BB, ruling in favor of the assessee against the Revenue on both questions.This judgment clarifies the mandatory nature of rule 1BB for property valuation under the Wealth-tax Act, emphasizing the need for proper application of rules and valid reasons for deviation. The decision highlights the importance of considering all relevant factors in determining the market value of properties for tax assessment purposes.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
