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
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>HUF wins property valuation dispute, ITAT allows declared value.</h1> <h3>Mr. S.D. Vimalchand Jain, HUF Versus Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward-6 (3), Chennai and Wealth Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward-6 (3), Chennai</h3> Mr. S.D. Vimalchand Jain, HUF Versus Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward-6 (3), Chennai and Wealth Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward-6 (3), Chennai - TMI Issues:1. Valuation dispute regarding the sale of an immovable property for computing long term capital gains.2. Wealth Tax valuation dispute for a rented out property.Valuation Dispute for Long Term Capital Gains:In the case of ITA No.357/Chny/2018, the appellant, a HUF engaged in money lending, sold a property for Rs. 85 lakhs. The Assessing Officer valued the property at Rs. 1,28,78,625 under section 50C of the Act, leading to an appeal. The ITAT directed a valuation by the DVO, who valued it at Rs. 92,52,000, considering a time gap and land rate increase. The appellant declared the value at Rs. 85,51,828. The ITAT noted a permissible 15% variation under section 55A(b)(i), with a difference of Rs. 7,14,110 (less than 10%). Consequently, no addition was warranted, and the declared value was accepted for computing long term capital gains. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted due to the permissible variation limit.Wealth Tax Valuation for Rented Out Property:Regarding WTA No.04/Chny/2018, the appellant appealed the Wealth Tax valuation of a rented out property. The ITAT observed that this was the only property owned by the appellant, and whether it was rented out had not been considered by the Assessing Officer. The issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for re-evaluation after ensuring a fair opportunity for the appellant. If it is confirmed that the property was rented out during the relevant period, no Wealth Tax would be applicable. The issue was remanded for proper consideration as it was not addressed by the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A). The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes pending further verification by the Assessing Officer.In conclusion, the appellant succeeded in ITA No.357/Chny/2018, and the appeal in WTA No.04/Chny/2018 was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The judgments were pronounced on 4th October 2018 in Chennai.