Income Tax

15% deduction for CPWD and State PWD rate variation allowable when AO estimated construction cost based on valuation cell report using CPWD Rates

15% deduction for CPWD and State PWD rate variation allowable when AO estimated the cost of building construction based on the report of the valuation cell. This was stated by ITAT Visakhapatnam in a recent judgment as under:

Case Law Details:
I.T.A.No.430/Vizag/2014  Assessment Year: 2007-08
B. Madhusudhana Reddy  vs. ACIT
Date of Judgment/Order: 06/05/2016

Brief Facts of the Case:
During the course of the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3), the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had constructed a two storied building and the cost of construction shown by the assessee was Rs. 42,13,860/- which was supported by the valuation report of an approved valuer, according to which cost of construction of the building was of Rs. 42.09 lakhs after claiming self supervision charges at 7.5%. The A.O. was of the opinion that the cost of construction shown by the assessee was low, therefore, he referred the case to valuation cell which estimated the cost of construction at Rs. 51.54 lakhs. The assessee submitted that the building was constructed far away from Vijayawada city for which P.W.D. rates were to be applied and if at all, CPWD rates were applied, 15% deduction should have been given to the assessee. However, the A.O. not accepted the submissions made by the assessee and based on the report of the Valuation Cell, made an addition of Rs. 9,45,000/-.

On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the A.O. On being aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal.

Important Excerpts from ITAT Judgment:

The case of the assessee is that the assessee has constructed a building in a rural area though comes under the purview of the Vijayawada city, CPWD rates cannot be applied but only PWD rates are to be applied. In case where CPWD rates are applied, 15% deduction towards the rate variation between CPWD & PWD should be given to the assessee. This aspect was not disputed by the department. Admittedly, the fact remains that the cost of construction was estimated by the A.O. based on the report of the valuation cell, which has in turn estimated the cost of construction based on the CPWD rates. Therefore, in our opinion, the assessee is entitled for 15% deduction towards the rate variation between CPWD & State PWD and further deduction of 7.5% towards self supervision charges from the value arrived by the DVO applying the CPWD rates. Ordered accordingly. 

download full judgment

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

AO took a reasonable stand that 25 kg written in WhatsApp chat was 25 lakh – ITAT

Assessing Officer had taken a reasonable stand that 25 kg written in WhatsApp chat/text message was 25 lakh - ITAT…

6 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Shareholders can’t be taxed for income from properties owned by the company – HC

Shareholders are only owners of the shares of the company therefore, income from properties earned by the company cannot be…

8 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Jurisdictional error in reassessment approval can’t be shielded by the law of limitation

When approval for reassessment was granted by unauthorised authority, such jurisdictional error cannot be shielded by the law of limitation…

11 hours ago
  • Income Tax

ITAT ought to remanded whole matter of bogus purchases instead of profit determination

ITAT on presumption of bogus purchases ought to have remanded case to AO to reconsider the whole matter instead of…

12 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Where proceedings u/s 153C barred by limitation, AO can’t invoke section 148 & 148A

Where proceedings u/s 153C are barred by limitation, AO can not reopen the case invoking section 148 and 148A of…

1 day ago
  • bankruptcy

Corporate guarantees executed by corporate debtor constitute “financial debt” under IBC

Corporate guarantees executed by the corporate debtor constitute “financial debt” under IBC and banks to be recognized as financial creditors…

1 day ago