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's Ruling: Valuation Dispute Decided, Emphasizes Fair Market Value</h1> <h3>Shri Kailash Chand Agarwal Versus The ACIT, Circle-4, Jaipur.</h3> Shri Kailash Chand Agarwal Versus The ACIT, Circle-4, Jaipur. - TMI Issues: Valuation of property under Section 50C and adoption of CPWD ratesIssue 1: Valuation under Section 50CThe appeal was filed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-II, Jaipur for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessing Officer observed a variance in the sale consideration of three shops, leading to a discrepancy in valuation. The assessee contested the valuation, requesting a fair market value determination by a valuation officer. The Valuation Officer initially valued the shops at &8377; 11,94,402, later revised to &8377; 11,45,000. The assessee's objections based on location near a railway bridge affecting commercial value were not accepted by the Assessing Officer, who relied on the Valuation Officer's report. The ld CIT(A) upheld the valuation, leading to the appeal.Issue 2: Adoption of CPWD ratesThe second ground of appeal related to the adoption of CPWD rates by the Valuation Officer instead of State PWD rates for construction valuation. The assessee argued that State PWD rates should apply, citing the impact of the property's location near a railway bridge. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, directing the adoption of State PWD rates for construction valuation. This decision was based on legal precedents, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in CIT Vs. Sunita Mansingha. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer/Valuation Officer for valuation based on State PWD rates.In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, dismissing the first ground and allowing the second ground for statistical purposes. The decision highlighted the importance of considering fair market value and appropriate valuation rates in property assessments.
TaxTMI 