TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (11) TMI 114
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d is beyond ceiling limits laid down in section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976. The valuation of the land was referred under section 16A of the WT Act, 1957 to the Valuation Officer and the Valuation Officer vide his report under section 16A(5) determined the value of the land as follows : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Material date of valuation Value of the land ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31-12-1983 14,70,800 31-12-1984 15,55,350 31-12-1985 16,39,900 31-12-1986 17,24,450 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the basis of the compensation which the assessee will be entitled to under the Urban Land Ceiling Act because the said land has not been acquired by the Government. He further submitted that the CWT(Appeals) failed to appreciate that the question of valuation of land will not arise if the land was already acquired because in that case the assessee will not be the owner of the land and no other question of valuation will arise because the assessee would have already got the amount of compensation. The learned counsel further submitted that the CWT(Appeals) erred in not taking note of Direct decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Gouri Prasad Goenka & Family (HUF) v. CWT [1993] 203 ITR 700 and the Madras High Court decis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....han High Court in the case of CWT v. Raj Kumari Bhubaneshwari Kumari [1994] 210 ITR 711 wherein the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has held that : " the provisions of the Rajasthan Act placed restrictions on the right to transfer of the property of value more than Rs. 3 lakhs but it could not be taken that the valuation of the property had been reduced to Rs. 3 lakhs. The Tribunal was not justified in coming to the conclusion that because of the provisions of the Rajasthan Act the value of the property had to be restricted to Rs. 3 lakhs alone. " The learned DR also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sri Sachindra Chowdhury v. WTO [1993] 44 ITD 614 which also supports his plea of not valuin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tical situation of there being only one decision, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court pointed out at page 583 that :-- " At the time when the Tribunal decided the appeal, that was the only decision in the field and, therefore, in view of what the Bombay High Court has held in CIT v. Godavaridevi Saraf (Smt.) [1978] 113 ITR 589 and CIT v. Smt. Nirmalabai K. Darekar [1990] 186 ITR 242 (Bom.), the Tribunal was bound to follow the said judgment of the Madras High Court. " Coming to the two decisions relied upon by the learned DR we note that the same are of no assistance to the Revenue. As regards the decision of Rajasthan High Court in Rai Kumari Bhubaneshwari Kumari's case ; when the present matter is in regard to the valuation of the excess lan....