We have heard Shri Rohit Amit Sthalekar, learned companynsel for the appellants and learned companynsel for the Department.
The Alpana Cinema property was valued by assessment books of accounts.
APPELLANT VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. All these appeals raising companymon questions of law have been heard together and are being decided by this companymon judgment.
The ITAT accepted the case of the assessee to the effect that the proper basis for valuing the Cinema building would be capitalisation of the income.
As numbered above, in all Wealth Tax References question was answered in favour of the Revenue.
The Appellate Authority by its detailed order dated 23.01.1986 affirmed the assessment made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of valuation by land and building method.
The High Court held that Wealth Tax Officer was justified in adopting the land and building method.
The High Court vide its judgment and order dated 21.10.2005 answered the questions in favour of Revenue and against the assessee.
All the assessees are partners in a firm M s. G.D. Sons.
Notices under Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 were issued to the appellants on 30.03.1979.
The High Court relied on its decision in Wealth Tax Reference 39 of 1985, Commissioner of Wealth Tax Central Kanpur vs. Bankey Lal and others decided on the same day, i.e., 21.10.2005.
The assessee aggrieved by the assessment order filed appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax.
The High Court vide its judgment and order dated 21.10.2005 answered the questions in favour of Revenue and against the assessee.
As numbered above, in all Wealth Tax References question was answered in favour of the Revenue.
The aggrieved by the different assessment orders the assessees filed Wealth Tax Appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT , Delhi Bench, Delhi.
The assessee aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court dated 21.10.2005 has companye up in the appeal.
If the answer to the above question is in the negative and against the assessee then what ought to be the companyrect fair market value of assets in question?
The income capitalisation method as was relied on by the assessee was number approved.
The High Court relied on its decision in Wealth Tax Reference 39 of 1985, Commissioner of Wealth Tax Central Kanpur vs. Bankey Lal and others decided on the same day, i.e., 21.10.2005.
M s. G.D. Sons of which firm the appellants are partners, purchased land and building in semi companystructed companydition on 04.06.1965 for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/. The companystruction was companypleted and Cinema Theatre, Alpana started running in the premises.
M s. G.D. Sons of which firm the appellants are partners, purchased land and building in semi companystructed companydition on 04.06.1965 for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/. The companystruction was companypleted and Cinema Theatre, Alpana started running in the premises.
The Assessing Officer relied on the Valuation Report submitted by the Departmental Valuer.
All the assessees are partners in a firm M s. G.D. Sons.
Although, initially the same was rejected by the Tribunal, on the direction of the High Court following two questions were referred to the High Court for decision Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law for the purpose of Section 7 1 of the Wealth Tax Act in determining the assessees interest in the partnership firm by adopting the fair market value of the assets in question namely, the cinema building on the income mobilization basis instead of land and building method adopted by Wealth Tax Officer?
He further submits that the High Court did number companytrovert findings of the fact returned by the Tribunal.
The assessment order was passed by the Wealth Tax Officer in March, 1983 making assessment for the period from 197071 to 197475.
The Revenue aggrieved by the Tribunals order filed reference application through Department.
APPELLANTS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.3837 OF 2011 RENUKA AGARWAL APPELLANT VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.3838 OF 2011 MASTER RAHUL APPELLANT VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.3839 OF 2011 SURENDRA KUMAR APPELLANT VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.3840 OF 2011 JITENDRA KUMAR HUF APPELLANT VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.3841 OF 2011 SHYAMLAL D BY LRS.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3836 OF 2011 BIMAL KISHORE PALIWAL ORS.
The High Court vide its separate judgments dated 21.10.2005 decided six Wealth Tax References aggrieved by which, the assessees have companye up in the appeal.
Valuation Officer after inspecting the site submitted its report dated 26.04.1977 valuing the property for assessment year 197071, 197172, 197273, 197374 and 197475.
The Assessing Officer relied on the Valuation Report submitted by the Departmental Valuer.
If the answer to the above question is in the negative and against the assessee then what ought to be the companyrect fair market value of assets in question?
The High Court held that Wealth Tax Officer was justified in adopting the land and building method.
The assessee aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court dated 21.10.2005 has companye up in the appeal.
One of the assets of the partnership Firm is a Cinema building known as Alpana Cinema situate at Model Town, New Delhi.
Assessees got the property valued by an approved Valuer adopting income capitalisation method.
The Alpana Cinema property was valued by assessment books of accounts.
The assessee aggrieved by the assessment order filed appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax.
The question which was referred to the High Court for answer relates to the companyrect method of the valuation of the property that is Alpana Cinema for assessment under Wealth Tax Act.
He further submits that the High Court did number companytrovert findings of the fact returned by the Tribunal.
The assessment was companypleted as per percentage of the right of different assessees which they have in the Firm.
Although, initially the same was rejected by the Tribunal, on the direction of the High Court following two questions were referred to the High Court for decision Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law for the purpose of Section 7 1 of the Wealth Tax Act in determining the assessees interest in the partnership firm by adopting the fair market value of the assets in question namely, the cinema building on the income mobilization basis instead of land and building method adopted by Wealth Tax Officer?
On pending assessment of Wealth Tax of one of the partners, the Wealth Tax Officer made a reference for valuation of the Alpana Cinema to Department Valuation Officer, New Delhi by Reference dated 29.04.1976.
Reference of facts and proceedings in C.A. NO.3836 of 2011 shall be sufficient to decide all these appeals.
One of the assets of the partnership Firm is a Cinema building known as Alpana Cinema situate at Model Town, New Delhi.
The Revenue aggrieved by the Tribunals order filed reference application through Department.
We have heard Shri Rohit Amit Sthalekar, learned companynsel for the appellants and learned companynsel for the Department.
The High Court vide its separate judgments dated 21.10.2005 decided six Wealth Tax References aggrieved by which, the assessees have companye up in the appeal.
Reference of facts and proceedings in C.A. NO.3836 of 2011 shall be sufficient to decide all these appeals.
The assessment was companypleted as per percentage of the right of different assessees which they have in the Firm.
Valuation Officer after inspecting the site submitted its report dated 26.04.1977 valuing the property for assessment year 197071, 197172, 197273, 197374 and 197475.
The income capitalisation method as was relied on by the assessee was number approved.
The question which was referred to the High Court for answer relates to the companyrect method of the valuation of the property that is Alpana Cinema for assessment under Wealth Tax Act.
The assessment order was passed by the Wealth Tax Officer in March, 1983 making assessment for the period from 197071 to 197475.
On pending assessment of Wealth Tax of one of the partners, the Wealth Tax Officer made a reference for valuation of the Alpana Cinema to Department Valuation Officer, New Delhi by Reference dated 29.04.1976.
The Appellate Authority by its detailed order dated 23.01.1986 affirmed the assessment made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of valuation by land and building method.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. All these appeals raising companymon questions of law have been heard together and are being decided by this companymon judgment.
Assessees got the property valued by an approved Valuer adopting income capitalisation method.
The ITAT accepted the case of the assessee to the effect that the proper basis for valuing the Cinema building would be capitalisation of the income.
Notices under Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 were issued to the appellants on 30.03.1979.
The aggrieved by the different assessment orders the assessees filed Wealth Tax Appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT , Delhi Bench, Delhi.
