2010 (9) TMI 1312

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....herein ground No.6 is general in nature and does not survive for adjudication. Ground Nos. 1 to 5 are elaborate and the only issue arising out of it is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in adopting the fair market value at Rs. 100/- per sq.ft. as on 1.4.1981 as against Rs.250 per sq.ft. proposed by the appellant for computing Capital Gains. 3. The assessee filed his return of income on 27.6.06 declaring income of Rs.1,07,15,791. Subsequently the case was taken up for scrutiny and assessment was completed on 15.12.2008 u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act enhancing the long term capital gains to Rs.1,44,24,250 as against Rs.1,03,27,127 worked out by the assessee. The assessee had relied upon the valuation certificate of the registered valuer dated 10.3.20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Gains. 4. Before the ld. CIT(Appeals), apart from the submissions made before the ld. AO, the assessee further pleaded that the fair market value as on 1.4.1981 may be worked out by using cost inflation index notified by CBDT for computing capital gains as follows :- (a) Based on appellant's sale instance on 05.09.2005 4,506*100 = Rs.906 497 (b) Based on Guidance value by Karnataka Govt. 1,600*100 = Rs.322 497 (c) Based on registered sale Instance of another property in same road on 08.09.2005 1,500*100 = Rs.302 497 In consideration of the above working, the assessee prayed that the value adopted by the independent valuer at Rs.250 per sq.ft. is not excessive and reflects the true market value ....