TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (4) TMI 31
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....69, Park Street, Calcutta, at Rs. 5,62,000 as against the value of Rs. 3,94,000 returned by the accountable person based on the valuation of Ms. Talbot & Co., approved valuers. On appeal before the Appellate Controller, he did not accept the valuation shown by the accountable person nor the valuation determined by the Assistant Controller. On the other hand, he held taking due note of the order of the Tribunal in the wealth-tax assessment fixing the rental of the ground floor at Rs. 950 per month as reasonable. He has computed the net annual rental income from the property at Rs. 36,800 after allowing 1/3rd of gross rent for outgoing and applying the multiplying factor at 14 instead of 12.5 adopted by the Tribunal for wealth-tax purposes.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in holding that for the purpose of capitalisation of net rental income in determination of the value of the property, No. 69, Park Street, Calcutta, the multiplying factor of 12.5 years purchase and not 14 years' purchase is reasonable and whether the said finding and/or conclusion is otherwise reasonable and/or perverse ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the relevant provisions of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in holding that fractional share in the property of the successor and life interest enjoyed by the deceased set off each other ?" By the order dated 23rd December, 1977, rule was made absolute on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal under section 64(3) of the Act is not the question on which rule was made absolute. Two courses are open to us. We may decline to answer the question referred to us as this question does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal or direct the Department to draw up the order on the correct question on which rule was made absolute on December 23, 1977, as mentioned hereinabove and serve a copy thereof oil the Tribunal. The Tribunal would thereafter submit another statement of case on the correct question. This will involve unnecessary delay and expense. Since the statement of case contains all the relevant facts relating to the question on which the rule was made absolute, by consent of the parties, we direct that the amendent be made in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appropriate rate of the net profits, the return from gilt-edged securities may, unless it is otherwise found not suitable, be adopted. Learned advocate, therefore, submits that in this case, the Tribunal should have adopted the method approved by the Supreme Court. He has also relied on another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala v. P. P. Hassan Koya reported in [1968] AIR 1968 SC 1201; 2 Supreme Court Appeals 362. There, the Supreme Court held that the method which was generally resorted to in determining the value of the land with buildings, specially those used for business purposes, is the method of capitalisation of return actually received or might reasonably be received from the land and the buildings. The S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... multiplying factor was determined by the Tribunal at 121 years' purchase. The Tribunal then proceeded to hold thus : " In that case (D. N. Elias), he was owning 1/4th share. In the case of the deceased, she was enjoying life interest only. Thus, the two set off each other. In this regard, the Appellate Controller war, in our opinion, wrong in not following the Appellate Tribunal's order in the case of Shri Elias." In view of the provisions of section 5 of the Act, life interest itself passes on death. Section 5 is not concerned with the title or ownership. Once the interest itself passes under section 5, the entire property covered by the interest is to be valued in accordance with the provisions of section 36 of the Act. Where the int....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owing terms : " Learned counsel for the assessee had placed before us a computation of the valuation of the gross annual rental income at Rs. 55,200 and reduced therefrom Rs. 22,643 to arrive at the net maintainable annual rent at Rs. 32,557. This was capitalised on 8% return to arrive at the valuation of Rs. 3,94,000. The difference lies mainly due to the deduction on account of repairs at Rs. 9,195 by the approved valuer whereas the learned counsel in his computation deducted Rs. 7,013 with reference to the bona fide annual value. It may be mentioned here that the approved valuer deducted the amount on account of repairs by taking 1/6th of the gross annual rent of Rs. 55,172, which was clearly wrong. In these circumstances, the valuatio....