Q. Who were the advocates involved in the case Commissioner of Income Tax vs Dinesh Talwar?

For Petitioner : Anuroop Singhi, Adv.For Respondent : J.K. Singhi, Adv.

Q. What are the equivalent citations for Commissioner of Income Tax vs Dinesh Talwar ?

The equivalence citation are(2003) 181 CTR (RAJ) 472 ; LQ/RajHC/2002/928 ;

Q. What was the bench assigned for the case Commissioner of Income Tax vs Dinesh Talwar?

HONBLE JUSTICE Y.R. MEENA , HONBLE JUSTICE SHASHI KANT SHARMA, JJ.

Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Dinesh Talwar On 28 August, 2002

Are you looking for a legal research tool ?

Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Dinesh Talwar

(High Court Of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench)

IT Ref. No. 1 of 1999 Assessment Year: 1990-91 | 28-08-2002

1. On an application filed under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in applying Rajasthan PWD rates for working out the cost of construction of house property for Income Tax purpose, instead of CPWD rates"

2. The assessee, who is an individual, constructed a house property in Malviya Nagar, Jaipur during the accountant period relevant to asst. yr. 1990-91. The Department referred the matter to the Valuation Officer for working out the cost of construction of the property. After receipt of the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer, the AO has made an addition of Rs. 1,46,400. While valuing, the Departmental Valuation Officer has applied the rate of CPWD for the purpose of valuation.

3. The Tribunal has valued the property adopting the rate of PWD What should be the value of the construction, is basically a question of fact and that depend upon the material used, the location and the quality of construction. Therefore, straightway, applying the PWD rate of CPWD. rate is not justified in case of each house. What should be cost of construction, the Tribunal has applied the rate of PWD, that is on the facts and circumstances of this case, which is part of finding of fact. No interference is called for.

In the result, we answer the question in affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

The reference so made stands disposed of.

Advocate List

For Petitioner : Anuroop Singhi, Adv.
For Respondent : J.K. Singhi, Adv.

Bench

HON'BLE JUSTICE Y.R. MEENA
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHASHI KANT SHARMA, JJ.

Eq Citations

(2003) 181 CTR (RAJ) 472
LQ/RajHC/2002/928

Head Note

Indirect Taxes — Wealth Tax — Valuation — Cost of construction — PWD rates — Application of — Assessee constructed a house property in Malviya Nagar, Jaipur during the accounting period relevant to A.Y. 1990-91 — Department referred the matter to the Valuation Officer for working out the cost of construction of the property — After receipt of the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer, the AO made an addition of Rs. 1,46,400 — While valuing, the Departmental Valuation Officer applied the rate of CPWD for the purpose of valuation — The Tribunal valued the property adopting the rate of PWD — Held, what should be the value of the construction, is basically a question of fact and that depend upon the material used, the location and the quality of construction — Therefore, straightway, applying the PWD rate of CPWD rate is not justified in case of each house — What should be cost of construction, the Tribunal has applied the rate of PWD, that is on the facts and circumstances of this case, which is part of finding of fact — No interference is called for Income Tax — Valuation — Cost of construction — PWD rates — Application of