VANKAYALAPATI KIRMAYE,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed
ITA 2126/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2009-10
Bench: S/Shri A .Mohan Alankamony & Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2010-2011 Ito, Ward -15(1), Vs. Smt Vankayalapati Kiranmayee, Hyderabad Plot No.60-A, 263, Eshwarapuri Colony, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad Pan/Gir No.Aewpv 0473 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessment Year : 2009-2010 Smt Vankayalapati Kiranmayee, Vs. Ito, Ward -15(1), Plot No.60-A, 263, Eshwarapuri Hyderabad Colony, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad Pan/Gir No.Aewpv 0473 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)
For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutham CIT (DR)
Section 144Section 148Section 50C
…mandates that, the AO ‘may’ refer to valuation to the departmental valuer, if the assessee objects to the value adopted by the registration authorities. The ‘may’ has been interpreted as ‘shall’ by various appellate authorities. a) Mrs Nandita Khosla vs CIT, 11 Taxmann.com 344 (Mum) b) Meghraj Baid vs CIT, 23 sot 24 (Del) c) Ito VS Manju Rani Jain, 24 SOT 24 (Del) d) Ajmal Fragrances & Fashions Pvt Ltd vs ACIT, 34 SOT 57 (Mum) 3. The documents produced during the appellate proceedings and the submissions of the assessee clearly show that the assessee objected to the value adopted by Registration Authorities as ‘…