2018 (4) TMI 994

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... agreement has been entered into on 17-08-2005, proceedings u/s. 148 were initiated against the said Late Shri A. Viplava Kumar and notices seems to have been served by affixture. AO brought to tax the capital gains on the transfer of 327 Sq. Yds., of land given in development for construction of certain apartments at 50-50 ratio. Since no notices could be served on Late Shri A. Viplava Kumar, AO made enquiries with his daughter and subsequently, with his wife, Smt. Susheela Devi and passed an ex-parte order. Smt. Susheela Devi could not ascertain the details completely and time given was very less. In completing the assessment ex-parte, AO has taken the value at Rs. 9,000/- per Sq. Yd., and calculated sale value on the entire land even though only 50% of the land was transferred. The undivided share of land for each flat was worked out at 44.5 Sq. Yds., and arrived at land received back at 133.5 Sq. Yds., even though assessee transferred 163.5 Sq. Yds. Thus, he brought excess valuation on 30 Sq. Yds., and by giving cost of acquisition at Rs. 200 per Sq. Yd., brought an amount of Rs. 15,49,161/- to tax. 3. Before the Ld.CIT(A), assessee contended that the calculation was wrong, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tter, we do not find any apparent error on the part of the CIT(A) in adopting the Fair Market Value of the land at Rs. 900 per sq. yard as on 1.4.1981. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in the grounds of the assessee as well in its cross objection, and consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A), even in the context of the assessee's cross objections, is upheld". 4.1. Respectfully following the same, since the property sold is in the vicinity, I direct the AO to adopt Rs. 900/- per Sq. Yd as cost of land as on 01-04-1981 and deduct 'indexed cost of acquisition' thereon to arrive at the Long Term Capital Gain on transfer of 50% of the land in Plot No. 67, admeasuring 327 Sq. Yds. Claim of Section 54F: 5. Even though the said agreement indicates that assessee was entitled for three constructed flats, the AO in his ex-parte order, did not consider any deduction u/s. 54F (even on one flat according to the Revenue stand). Ld.CIT(A) failed to understand the issue and did not allow any deduction u/s. 54F as stated above. We are of the opinion that this issue is crystalised, in favour of assessee, by not only jurisdictional High Court but also by the judgment of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....han the net consideration in respect of the original asset, the whole of such capital gain shall not be charged under section 45: (b) if the cost of the new asset is less than the net consideration in respect of the original asset, so much of the capital gain as bears to the whole of the capital gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section 45: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where- (a) the assessee, (i) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset; or (ii) purchases any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of one year after the date of transfer of the original asset; or (iii) constructs any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of three years after the date of transfer of the original asset; and (b) the income from such residential house, other than the one residential house owned on the date of transfer of the original asset, is chargeable under the head 'income from house property' 9. It is rel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r Section 54F, followed the above-said decision of this Court in T.C.(A)No.656 of 2005 and granted the benefit to the assessee under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act on the investment made in the four flats. 13. Hence, the above-said decisions of this Court make it clear that the property should be assessed as one unit, even though different flats are available............." 8. The jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT V/s. Vittal Krishna Conjeevaram (supra), following the decision in the case of CIT VIs. Syed Ali Adil (supra) and the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s. Gita Duggal (supra) dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, confirming the order of the ITAT. The above judgments lay down a principle that merely because a residential house consists of several independent residential units, deduction under S.54/S.54F could not disallowed. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vis. Syed Ali Adil (supra) as approved in the case of CIT V/s. Vittal Krishna Conjeevaram (supra) and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Madras discussed above, we have no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....et value as on 01.04.1981 at Rs. 160. The applicant submitted that the guidelines values of 01.04.1981 of the Registration Department were the values fixed much earlier without revision for a long time. The applicant submitted the comparative table which gives the guideline value as on 01.04.1981 and market value adopted by Judicial Authorities as under: Name of the assessee Location of the property SRO rate per sq. yd. Rate fixed by Appellate Authority Remarks Sri O.V. Ramana Reddy Banjara Hills Opp: GVK Mall 100 per sq. yd. 900 CIT(A) Confirmed by ITAT & HC The applicant stated that considering the location of the property i.e. Ashok Nagar to fix the market value as on 01.04.1981 at Rs. 2,500 per sq yd. 7.3 In the case of O.V. Ramana Reddy, it was held that when SRO value cannot be considered the Fair Market Value has to be taken on the basis of Regd. Valuer Report. In the present case, there is no Regd. Valuer Report submitted by the applicant. It is pertinent to note that the Valuation of property also depends on location. The aforesaid case is in at high end area of the city. Hence, the cost may be higher than the SRO value. In t....