Ita/1024/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. R.rajendra Prasad, Calicut
High Court
10 Aug 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Ita/1024/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. R.rajendra Prasad, Calicut
Date of order
10 Aug 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Ita/1024/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. R.rajendra Prasad, Calicut, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: The question raised in the departmental appeal is whether theTribunal is justified in adopting PWD valuation for valuing un-explained investment in respect of construction of a house.
Decision: Consequently appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
MONDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2009 / 19TH SRAVANA 1931
ITA.No. 1024 of 2009()
----------------------
ITA.136/COCH//2005 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH
....................
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT
----------------------------------------
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
COCHIN
BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)
SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT
------------------------
R.RAJENDRA PRASAD, DY.TRANSPORT
COMMISSIONER, CIVIL STATION, CALICUT-2.
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 10/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of August, 2009
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair,J.
The question raised in the departmental appeal is whether theTribunal is justified in adopting PWD valuation for valuing un-explained investment in respect of construction of a house. Theassessing officer went by the CPWD norms. All what the Tribunal didwas to permit the assessee to adopt PWD valuation. Since in similarcases, we have taken the view that valuation under local conditions isonly what is approved by the Tribunal, because only local rates basedon local conditions are prescribed by the PWD, we do not findanything wrong in the Tribunal adopting valuation based on PWDnorms. Consequently appeal is dismissed.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)Judge.
(C. K. ABDUL REHIM)
Judge.
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.