Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, in valuing the right to receive compensation for acquired land as on the date of death of the deceased, a further discount could be made by introducing the theory of risk or hazard of litigation after applying Parks' principles of valuation.
Analysis: The value of the deceased's property had to be estimated as on the date of death on the basis of what it would fetch in the open market. In the case of a right to receive compensation, the amount finally payable is not by itself conclusive, and the surrounding circumstances, including the marketability of the right, the uncertainty of the compensation amount, the delay in finalisation of the award, and the possibility of litigation, are relevant factors. The guiding principle is that the risk or hazard of litigation is a factor to be taken into account in fixing the value, and there is no hard and fast rule for determining such value. On the facts, the Tribunal had already applied Parks' formula to the ultimate compensation and then made a further discount to reflect the risks and delays inherent in the claim.
Conclusion: The further discount for risk was justified and the valuation adopted by the Tribunal was upheld. The question was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
Ratio Decidendi: In valuing a deceased's right to receive compensation, the assessing authority must consider the open market value as on the date of death and may account for litigation risk, uncertainty of recovery, and delay in finalisation; no rigid percentage rule applies.