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 the second valuation report, based on the development method, was a legally permissible basis for determining the fair market value of land already used as a building site and whether it could be relied upon in proceedings under Chapter XX-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: Fair market value may take account of the potentiality of land, but only its real and legally relevant potentialities. Where the property is already a building site, a method which assumes construction of a modern shopping complex and then capitalises the expected income from that imagined development does not reflect the value of the land on the date of sale. The contractor's method was also distinguished, since it is directed to the capital value of an existing building and not to the valuation of land simpliciter. The proceedings themselves were not quashed because they rested on other materials as well, but the impugned valuation report was held to be irrelevant.
Conclusion: The second valuation report could not validly be taken into consideration or relied upon for determining fair market value, and the writ petition was allowed to that limited extent.
Ratio Decidendi: In valuing land already used as a building site, speculative development-based valuation that ignores the property's actual condition and existing use is not a legally permissible basis for determining fair market value.