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.
The Court held that while the assessees reply period had to be excluded under Section 149, the Assessing Officer still failed to issue the Section 148 notice within the extended statutory timeline. The reassessment notice was therefore quashed as time-barred.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that appellate authorities are empowered to entertain claims not made before the Assessing Officer. The absence of a revised return did not bar consideration of the claim.
ITAT Chandigarh held that compensation received on termination of employment due to retrenchment was a capital receipt. The Tribunal ruled that no part of the compensation was taxable.
