Rent-controlled property valuation under wealth tax turns on yield method, lease restrictions, and adjustment of abnormal rent.

For wealth-tax valuation of rent-controlled leasehold property, the fair market value is determined by capitalising net maintainable rent under the yield method rather than by separate land-and-building valuation. A lease covenant requiring the lessee to share 50% of any unearned increase in value on transfer must be reflected as a deduction in the valuation because it reduces the open-market price. Where rent received from foreign tenants includes an abnormal or fancy element, the rent base should be adjusted downward before capitalisation, and valuation recomputed accordingly. The stated approach treats lease restrictions and atypical rent as relevant valuation factors under section 7(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether 50% of the unearned increase in the value of leasehold land was deductible while determining the fair market value of the property under the Wealth-tax Act; (ii) whether the property, being subject to rent control, should be valued on the land-and-building method or the yield method; (iii) whether the actual rent received from foreign tenants should be taken at full value or adjusted to eliminate the element of fancy rent.

Issue (i): Whether 50% of the unearned increase in the value of leasehold land was deductible while determining the fair market value of the property under the Wealth-tax Act.

Analysis: The lease deed required the assessee to share half of the unearned increase with the lessor on transfer. That restriction affected the market value of the asset on the valuation date and was relevant in estimating the price the property would fetch in the open market.

Conclusion: The deduction of 50% of the unearned increment was justified and the Revenue's objection on this point failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the property, being subject to rent control, should be valued on the land-and-building method or the yield method.

Analysis: For a building governed by rent control restrictions, separate valuation of land and building was not treated as the proper approach. The correct basis was the capitalisation of net rental income, i.e. the yield method, for estimating the open market value under section 7(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.

Conclusion: The yield method was the proper method of valuation and the land-and-building method was not to be applied.

Issue (iii): Whether the actual rent received from foreign tenants should be taken at full value or adjusted to eliminate the element of fancy rent.

Analysis: The rents received from foreign tenants were not treated as wholly normal rent because the subsequent letting to an Indian tenant showed a decline in rent. The rent base was therefore required to be adjusted downward to eliminate the abnormal element before applying the capitalisation multiple.

Conclusion: The actual rent was to be reduced in the stated ratio before capitalisation, and the matter was remitted for recomputation on that basis.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeals were rejected, while the assessee obtained partial relief on valuation by securing recomputation of the property's value on the yield basis with adjustment for the abnormal rent element.

Ratio Decidendi: For a rent-controlled property valued under section 7(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, fair market value is to be determined primarily by capitalising the net maintainable rent, with lease restrictions and abnormal rent elements reflected in the computation.

---