TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (3) TMI 51
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion on Transfer) Act, 1973, were applicable for determining the market value of the plots for the purposes of the wealth-tax on the relevant date of valuation.? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that the market value of the plots on the relevant valuation date could not be more than Rs. 3,00,000 in view of the provisions of the Rajasthan Urban Property (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1973, is perverse and contrary to the material on record ?" The brief facts of the case are that the State Legislature enacted the Rajasthan Urban Property (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called as "the Act"). Under section 2(f) of the Act, the expression "value" ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Arguments of learned counsel for both the parties have been heard. Mr.Ranka, learned counsel for the respondent, has placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CWT v. Sint. Promila Bali [1983] 141 ITR 942, wherein there were restrictions on the right of transfer and it was considered that a leasehold right can have a market value only if a transfer is permitted under the terms of the contract. If there is only a personal right which is not transferable, then it would not be possible to value the property on the basis that it was an absolute right equal to ownership. In these circumstances, the value of the property was taken on the basis of the initial contribution mad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....High Court in the case of CWT v. K. S. Ranganatha Mudaliar [19841 150 ITR 619, wherein the Madras High Court has taken the view that the amount which has been received by way of compensation under the Ceiling Act has to be taken as the value of the property. The decisions which have been relied upon by Mr. Ranka are in respect of certain properties which have been restricted from being transferred and are to be acquired and in such a case the amount which is payable by way of compensation is considered to be the market value because the owner would get the said amount which he is entitled to receive. In the present case, the restriction which has been placed is temporary restriction which was subsequently, withdrawn. Since we are concerned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by itself show that it is not a valuable asset. Section 1 of the Act does not take note of hypothetical possibilities in the matter of valuation of the assets. It merely concerns itself as to what is the true market value of the assets in question on the valuation date. In view of the above observations, we are of the opinion that because of the Act, it was only the restriction which was placed on the right of the owner to transfer the property, therefore, the valuation is affected, but is not restricted to Rs. 3 lakhs alone. In the case of CWT v. Raghubar Narain Singh [1984] 146 ITR 228, the apex court held that if an asset is subject to certain hazards including the liability of certain debt to be deducted from the asset, then that facto....