TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether, for computing capital gains, the fair market value of the property as on 01.04.1981 had to be taken at the rate adopted by the assessee on the basis of the registered valuer's report or at a lower rate fixed by the Assessing Officer after reference to the valuation machinery; (ii) whether the claim of cost of improvement of Rs. 1,90,000 was allowable; and (iii) whether deduction under section 54 was admissible on investment in a house boat claimed to be a residential house.
Issue (i): whether, for computing capital gains, the fair market value of the property as on 01.04.1981 had to be taken at the rate adopted by the assessee on the basis of the registered valuer's report or at a lower rate fixed by the Assessing Officer after reference to the valuation machinery.
Analysis: The assessee adopted the fair market value on the basis of a registered valuer's report. The Assessing Officer treated the valuation as excessive and referred the matter to the valuation machinery, but the Tribunal held that such reference was not justified where the value declared by the assessee was not below the fair market value. The Tribunal also held that the Assessing Officer was not competent to substitute his own technical valuation in place of the registered valuer's estimate in the facts of the case. The area adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) was, however, found to be consistent with the sale deed and valuation material.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and the fair market value as on 01.04.1981 was directed to be taken at Rs. 2,200 per sq. ft. on the built-up area of 1,675 sq. ft.; the Revenue's challenge on this aspect failed.
Issue (ii): whether the claim of cost of improvement of Rs. 1,90,000 was allowable.
Analysis: The assessee did not furnish satisfactory details or evidence to substantiate the alleged renovation and improvement expenditure. In the absence of proof, the disallowance was sustained.
Conclusion: The disallowance of cost of improvement was upheld and the issue was decided against the assessee.
Issue (iii): whether deduction under section 54 was admissible on investment in a house boat claimed to be a residential house.
Analysis: The Tribunal found that no registered sale deed for the house boat was produced and that, on the material available, the house boat could not be equated with a residential house for the purposes of section 54. The restrictions under the local law were also noticed, and the claimed acquisition was held not to satisfy the statutory requirement of purchase of a residential house.
Conclusion: The deduction under section 54 was rightly denied and the issue was decided against the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded only on the valuation issue, while the disallowance of cost of improvement and the denial of section 54 relief were sustained; the connected Revenue appeal on valuation was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: A reference to valuation machinery is not warranted where the assessee's declared fair market value is not lower than the market value, and deduction under section 54 is available only where the investment is in a qualifying residential house supported by legally cognizable acquisition.
TaxTMI 
