2016 (8) TMI 1150

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) r.w.s.147 of the I.T.Act. 2. Since the grounds raised in all the appeals are common, therefore, all the appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, facts and circumstances mentioned in the case of assessee Pandurang G. Mhatre, shall be taken into consideration. 3. The common grievance of the assesses in all the appeals pertains to addition made by the AO by disregarding the valuation made by the assessee on the basis of government approved valuer's report as on 1-4-1981. 4. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that all the above assesses are co-owners of land situated at Village Gandhara Taluka Kalyan. The above co-owners under....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ITA -Vs- Rabinder H. Chhabra (HUF), ITA No.5511/Mum/2012 dt. 23.05.2014 - Hon. Members, "0" Bench, IT A T Mumbai 5. Hiaben Jayantilal Shah -Vs- ITA & Anr. 310 ITR 31 (Guj) (2009) 6. The Finance Bill 2012, Bill No. 11 of2012. 7. On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the order of lower authorities and contended that the CIT(A) has relied on the sale instances of village Chikanghar, Kalyan, the land of the assessee was located at village Gandhare, Kalyan and the location and other factors were comparable. 8. I have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of authorities below. The issue under consideration is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Puja P....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... market value. In the aforesaid circumstances, the invocation of Section 55A (a) of the Act is not justified. 8. The contention of the revenue that in view of the amendment to Section 55A(a) of the Act in 2012 by which the words "is less than the fair market value" is substituted by the words" "is at variance with its fair market value" is clarificatory and should be given retrospective effect. This submission is in face of the fact that the 2012 amendment was made effective only from 1 July 2012. The Parliament has not given retrospective effect to the amendment. Therefore, the law to be applied in the present case is Section 55A(a) of the Act as existing during the period relevant to the Assessment Year 2006-07. At the relevant time, v....