TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 1114
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by any factual finding? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that the A.O failed to determine the value of assets in accordance with the conditions attached within the impugned agreement and the valuation computed by the A.O is un-sustainable thereby deleting the entire addition. 3. That the order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 4. That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 3. This matter pertains to Wealth Tax. During the course of proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2009-10, it was noticed that the assessee was having urban land for more than 10 years as stock-in-trade in closing stoc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... best Rs. 20,000/- per acre. The lands of the project were sold by API but inadvertently these balances were not transferred to the accounts of API and in fact these stocks were not existing in the hands of the assessee company. Under the development agreement common areas are provided like roads, parks, etc which are not saleable and does not have market value. These are part of balances to be transferred to the accounts of API which inadvertently was not done in the accounts of the assessee company. In the event of any land or part thereof being acquired by the Government, the compensation received by the assessee company was on account of API and was liable to the reimbursed by the assessee company to API. The assessee filed an affidavit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd that cannot be taken into account. In fact the CIT(A) has not counted the value in respect of the contents given in affidavit which should have been verified. Hence, the CIT (A) was wrong in allowing the appeal of the assessee. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has rightly pointed out that the valuation which was done was totally irrelevant and the confirmation from API clearly states that the assessee received only Rs. 20,000 per acre. The assessee also relied upon the judgment of ITAT F Bench, New Delhi in case of Nachiketa Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (WTA No. 32/DEL/2010 dated 25.01.2012 wherein the similar issue was taken into consideration. In the said order it was held that in the agreement in respect of the transaction whether th....