TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (10) TMI 96
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g out the net annual letting value of the property ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the reversionary value of the land does not enter into picture where the value of a property is determined by capitalising the net annual letting value of the property ?" 2 The present reference relates to the assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76. 3 Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present references are as follows: 4 The assessees who are Gopal Sutwala (individual), Gopal Sutwala (karta) of Hira Lal Sutwala (HUF) and Smt.'parti E (HUF) are cowners in the following five properties 1. 58/44 and 58/44A, Birhana Road, Kanpur 2. 75/4, Halsey Road, Kanpu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....74-75 1975-76 Rs 1,89,100 Rs. 1,89,100 Rs 2,21,800 Property No.5 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 Rs. 3,23,000 Rs. 3,23,000 Rs. 3,61,900 7 The Wealth-tax Officer assessed the assessee's share in these properties to wealth-tax accordingly 8 Being aggrieved the assessee filed appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commission. The valuation made by the Valuation Officer was con tested on the following grounds in respect of the first three properties 1. Deduction on account of repairs to the extent of one-thirteenth only given by the Valuation Officer while working out the net annual letting value. 2. Deduction given on account of collection charges to the extent of 4 per cent. only. 3. Inclusion of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sistant for working out the net annual letting value of the in view of the Calcutta High Court decision in the case of Smt. Ashima Sinha [1979] 116 ITR 26. The Tribunal relying upon the cases of Ashima Sinha [1979]116 ITR 26 (Cal) and CIT v. Anup Kumar [1980] 125 ITR 684 (Cal) also held that since the market value of the property was being arrived at by capitalising the annual letting value, no like the reversionary value of the land could enter into picture. In so far as property Nos. 4 and 5 are concerned, the order of the Appellate assistant commissioner was set aside to be made afresh 11 we have heard Sri R.K Upadhyaya , learned standing counsel for the Revenue . 12 we find that so far as the first question is concerned, the tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of Smt. Ashima Sinha [1979] 116 ITR 26 we find that in working out the net annual letting value the deductions on account of maintenance of repairs management and collection charges have been allowed at one-sixth and 6 per cent, of respectively of the gross rent minus the municipal taxes. That being the positions we are of the considered view that the stand taken by learned counsel for the assessee in this behalf merits acceptance." 13 From the reading of the aforesaid order, it appears that even the Central Board of Direct Taxes had issued a circular for granting deduction of one- twelfth towards the repairs and 4 per cent, towards collection charges while determining the annual letting value. The Tribunal, however, relied upon a decis....