The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not validly refer the valuation issue to the DVO for Assessment Year 2012-13. Since the statutory conditions were not met, the long-term capital gains addition was deleted.
ITAT Surat held that the Assessing Officer could not refer the property valuation to the DVO where the assessee had adopted a higher value based on a registered valuer’s report. The LTCG addition based on the DVO report was deleted.
The Tribunal held that a land sale completed before 01.07.2012 could not be subjected to a DVO reference under the amended Section 55A. Since the valuation reference was invalid, the long-term capital gains addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not validly refer the property valuation to the DVO for Assessment Year 2012-13 under the unamended Section 55A. Since the valuation reference lacked legal authority, the addition to long-term capital gains could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the amended Section 55A could not be applied to a land sale completed before 01.07.2012. Since the DVO reference was not valid under the law then in force, the capital gains addition based on that valuation could not stand.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 55A applies prospectively and could not be used for land transactions completed before 01.07.2012. As the assessee had relied on a registered valuers higher valuation, the DVO reference was declared invalid and the appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not validly refer the matter to the DVO for a transaction completed before the 2012 amendment to Section 55A. Capital gains were directed to be recomputed using the registered valuers report.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2011-12, the Assessing Officer could not refer property valuation to the DVO when the assessee relied on a registered valuers higher FMV. The capital gains computation based on the DVOs valuation was therefore set aside.
The Tribunal held that for Assessment Year 2010-11, a reference to the DVO was impermissible where the assessee’s declared value exceeded the department’s estimate. The resulting capital gains addition was therefore deleted.
The Court held that the Assessing Officer could not refer the matter to the Valuation Officer under Section 55A where the assessees registered valuer had reported a higher value. The reassessment based on such reference was therefore held impermissible.
