1984 (4) TMI 90

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... building for the purposes of investment was made by the Valuation Cell finally at Rs. 4,11,660. The WTO did not accept the value shown by the assessee for the cinema building and this was referred to the Valuation Cell who valued the property as under: Asst. yr. Rs. 1971-72 5,15,000 1972-73 5,28,700 1973-74 5,28,700 1974-75 5,52,000 1975-76 5,52,000 The Valuation Officer for the asst. yr. 1971-72 valued the land to which he added the cost of building, machinery, value of the old building and compound wall, etc. The valuation from 1972-73 and onward was made by capitalising the net profit earned by the assessee at Rs. 10.53 times. It is relevant to mention that this assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... could not be equated with cost and, therefore, the value adopted by the Valuation Cell may be accepted. Shri Jha, the senior departmental representative, supported the argument of the Valuation Officer and further highlighted the difference between the value and the cost and he supported his argument by referring to the Commentary of the ld. author Shri Verma on wealth-tax. 4. The assessee's counsel, on the other hand, referred to the facts and urged that cinema building was not constructed new as indicated by the Valuation Officer. A portion of it under the direction of the West Bengal Government was demolished and reconstructed. The cost was determined by the Valuation Cell at Rs. 4,11,660 and, therefore, the value adopted by the AAC c....