2002 (8) TMI 41

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he purpose of computing the disallowance under section 37(3A) for the assessment year 1984-85. This question, it is submitted by learned counsel for the parties, is covered by the law laid down in the case of CIT v. Sholinger Textiles Ltd. [1999] 240 ITR 908 (Mad). Applying the law laid down therein, this question is required to be and is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The second question is whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the reimbursement of the medical expenses made to the director/divisional managers/secretary of the company should be taken into account for the purpose of computing disallowance under section 40(c)/40A(5). Counsel for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....year, sold a building situated at Nos. 6 and 7, Pattulos Road, Madras, for a consideration of Rs. 7 lakhs. The assessee estimated the value of the building as on January 1, 1964, at Rs. 4 lakhs and computed the capital gain at Rs. 3 lakhs. The assessee relied on the valuation made by a registered valuer who first calculated the value of the land and building separately and thereafter assuming a notional rent of Rs. 7,500 per month which was higher than the actual rent received, he worked out the value of the building on that basis by adopting the rent capitalisation method. The average of the two values so computed was Rs. 4 lakhs which the valuer certified as the value of the building as on January 1, 1964. The Assessing Officer rejected t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n by the registered valuer was higher than what the Assessing Officer regarded as the fair market value. Clause (b) also is not attracted for the reason that the value claimed was higher than what in the view of the Assessing Officer the value was, and also having regard to the nature of the assets and the relevant circumstances, the Assessing Officer did not consider it necessary to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer. We cannot fault the Assessing Officer for not having referred the matter to the Valuation Officer when he was under no obligation to do so. The nature of the asset and the relevant circumstances in this case did not require the reference to the Valuation Officer as the assessee had furnished the actual rent received....