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>Tribunal upholds Commissioner's decision on construction cost relief using PWD rates, citing case law</h1> <h3>Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Smt. CK. Sumathy</h3> Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Smt. CK. Sumathy - [2010] 6 ITR 193, [2011] 44 SOT 65 (Chennai) (URO) Issues:- Justification of allowing relief towards cost of construction of kalyanamandapam by adopting State PWD rates over CPWD rates.Analysis:Issue 1: Justification of allowing relief towards cost of constructionThe appeal concerned the assessment year 2006-07 where the only issue was whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was correct in allowing a relief of Rs. 15,41,684 towards the cost of construction of a kalyanamandapam by adopting State PWD rates for valuation instead of CPWD rates used by the Assessing Officer. The assessee, a civil contractor, had constructed the kalyanamandapam and shopping complex, and the cost of construction was initially admitted at Rs. 84,69,000 based on an approved valuer's report. However, the Departmental Valuation Officer estimated the cost at Rs. 1,11,32,000 using CPWD rates. The Assessing Officer then adopted the cost at Rs. 1,02,77,894 after a 10% rebate for self-supervision. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directed a 15% deduction on the net value to match it with PWD rates, resulting in the deletion of Rs. 15,41,684 addition. The Departmental representative argued against this additional deduction, while the assessee's counsel supported it citing relevant case laws.Issue 1 Analysis:The Tribunal analyzed the contentions and the material on record, noting that the deduction of Rs. 15,41,684 was equivalent to 15% of the valuation adopted by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner's directions were based on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in A. Abdul Rahim's case, where a 15% deduction on CPWD rates was deemed appropriate considering the self-supervision rebate already granted. Moreover, the Tribunal referred to the decision in K.K. Seshaiyer's case, emphasizing the importance of actual recorded costs and the applicability of PWD rates in mofussil areas. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, stating that PWD rates should be applied for properties in mofussil areas, and a 15% deduction beyond self-supervision is justified to align CPWD-based valuations with PWD rates.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the Commissioner's decision to allow the relief towards the cost of construction by adopting State PWD rates over CPWD rates, as per the established legal principles and precedents from relevant High Court judgments.
TaxTMI 