2013 (7) TMI 558

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The ground raised in WTA NO. 6/Del/2012 reads as under:- "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CWT(A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to take the value of land at Rs. 31,93,297/- as shown by the assessee in his books of account as against Rs. 1,02,77,945/- adopted by the Assessing Officer." 3. The ground raised in WTA No. 7/Del/2012 reads as under:- "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CWT(A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to take the value of land at Rs. 31,93,297/- as shown by the assessee in his books of account as against Rs. 1,24,36,314/- adopted by the Assessing Officer." 4. The ground raised in WTA No. 14/Del/2012 reads as under:- "On the facts and in the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... adopted by the Assessing Officer for the Asstt. year 2007-08. 9. Before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) assessee relied upon the decision of M/s Sahara India Savings & Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. ACIT, A.Yrs. 1991-92 to 1993-94, WTA Nos. 1 & 2 of 1998 and 1999 respectively dated 14.1.2000 and M/s Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd. vs. ACIT. In the common order for the A.Yrs. 1993-94 to 2003-04 dated 18.9.2009. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) observed that similar additions made in the earlier years have been deleted by the respective Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A). He further noted that as per Rule 14 of Schedule III for valuing assets of business sub-rule 2(ii) of rule 14 states "in the case of an asset on which ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessee, on the other hand, first of all pointed out that the valuation report relied on by the Assessing Officer was for assessment year 1994-95 as has been mentioned by the Assessing Officer at page 3 of the assessment order itself and, therefore, that report was not relevant for determining the value of properties as on 31.3.1993. Proceeding further, the assessee's counsel submitted that the immovable properties being used by the assessee for its business, the value of the same was to be determined as per Rule 14 of Schedule III and not as per Rule 20, as has been canvassed by the Revenue. Further explaining the provision of Sec. 40, the counsel for the assessee submitted that Global valuation of the assets of business in assessee's case....