TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 464
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ming the action of the AO. In assessing long term capital gain for transfer of share in development rights of land, which has already been transferred on 11-11-1999 and further challenging the valuation of DVO adopting fair market value as on 01-04-1981. For this assessee has raised following grounds: - "1A. The Hon. CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 20,35,090/- as long term capital gains from transfer of share in development rights of land admeasuring 1110 sq...mtrs at survey no. 54(P) village Gandhare, Taluka Kalyan, Dist. Thane in there under appeal, not appreciating that such "transfer" had actually taken place by way of registered agreement dt. 11.11.1999 falling in asst. yr. 2000-01 and accordingly the long term capital ga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder: - 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 development agreement dt. 19.03.2004 have transferred their respective rights in 3 parcels of land at village Gandhare, Taluka Kalyan to M/s.Madhav Construction for the total consideration of Rs. 2,35,00,000/-. While working out long term capital gains, the co-owners adopted the F.M.V. of land as on 01.04.1981 at Rs.200/- pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ces 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 Prints, 360 ITR 697, wherein the Hon'ble High Court held as under :- 6. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the impugned order dated 18 February, 2011 allowing the respondent assessee's appeal holding that no reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer can be made under Section 55A of the Act, only follows the decision of this Court in the matter of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ospective 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, very clearly reference could be made to Departmental Valuation Officer only if the value declared by the assessee is in the opinion of Assessing Officer less than its fair market value. 9. The contention of the revenue that the reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer by the Assessing Officer is sustainable in view of Section 55A(a) (ii) of the Act is not acceptable. This....