2014 (1) TMI 1313

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ef are that the AO during the assessment proceedings noted that the assessee vide agreement dated 7.4.2005 had sold the property at 14(5), Gulzare Kazami Estate, 89 G Mazgaon Road, Mumbai - 10, in respect of which long term capital gain of Rs. 219783/- had been declared adopting the stamp duty value of the property as the market value at Rs. 1,15,32,000/-. Since the property had been acquired prior to 1.4.1981 the assessee had taken the cost of acquisition at market value as on 1.4.1981 which was Rs. 22,76,100/- as per the registered valuer report. The AO noted that the registered valuer in column 3 of the report had mentioned the rate of Rs. 375/- per sq. ft. but in the column no. 5 rate adopted for the purpose of valuation was Rs. 450 per....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ces attached to it. The assessee also pointed out that the DVO had cited two sale instances which were for the year 1977 and 1979 whereas the relevant date of valuation was 1.4.1981. The DVO had also not given the details of the property. The date of registration of property had also not been given from which the assessee could obtain details. The assessee pointed out that it was possible that the properties in the sale instances were occupied by the tenants. It was pointed out that both the sale instances had area in excess of 500 sq. mtrs. and in the relevant period Urban Land Ceiling Act was inforce as per which sale of open plots in excess of 500 was not permitted. Therefore, obviously the properties must have been structures duly tenan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot stated clearly as to in which respects the sale instances were superior to that of the assessee. The DVO had given a general reply that the rates were duly adjusted taking into account all factors. DVO had also not taken into account the full fledged structures on the land about which also the assessee had raised objections being the objection no. 3, details of which have been given at page 16 and 17 of the paperbook. The DVO had mentioned that structures were twenty years old and had considerably depreciated and even the registered valuer had not adopted any value. It was pointed out if the structure was old, it could not be said that it had no value when it was being used for ware housing purposes and merely because the registered valu....