Case Law Details
CASE LAWS DETAILS
DECIDED BY: ITAT, LUCKNOW BENCH `B’, LUCKNOW,
IN THE CASE OF: Ramendra Vikram Singh Vs ITO, APPEAL NO: ITA Nos. 76 to 79/Luc/08, DECIDED ON: February 27, 2009
RELEVANT PARAGRAPH
12. We have-considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. So far as facts are concerned, the undisputed facts are that assessees inherited in the co-ownership a Bungalow No. 2, Faizabad Road, Opposite to IT College, Lucknow. This was sold by these assessees vide sale deed dated 20.11.2003. Apparent consideration is declared at Rs. 1,20,00,000/- whereas valuation as per SVA is Rs. 2,48,19,410/-. The assessees objected to the proposal of the Assessing Officer to substitute valuation as per SVA for apparlent sale consideration as per sale deed by submitting a copy of registered valuer’s report showing fair market value at Rs. 56,29,580/-. Accordingly, the. Assessing Officer referred the property to the DVO as provided u/s 50C(2).
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
what treatment will be done on Cash exp. in regards of Cost of improvement.
no doubt the assessee has to satisfy the exp incurred and withdrawl from bank to that extent or cash in hand subject to evidnce, but there is no provision in the ITR to show such expenses and it is to be verified whether permission from Muncipality is required for repairs off Boundary wall as well as general renovation. The person occupying the house is a Retd Chief Justice and can through better light on the expenses incurred in developments even ignoring hearsay. benefit of doubt can also be given to assessee if any.