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

  • ICAI

Empanelment of ICAI Exam observer for January 2027 Examinations. Last date: 20.11.2026

Empanelment to act as ICAI exam observers for January 2027 CA Examination. Last date to apply is 20.11.2026 Empanelment of…

5 hours ago
  • GST

No arrest under GST- Major decision of 57th Meeting of GST Council held on 8th October 2026

No arrest under GST- Major decision taken in 57th Meeting of the GST Council on 8th October 2026 PRESS RELEASE…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Later SC ruling cannot render an act done in compliance of a court order a statutory default

A subsequent Apex Court ruling on the substantive issue cannot retrospectively make an act done in compliance of a binding…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Interest payment on mobilisation advance to NHAI not liable to TDS u/s 194A

Interest payment on mobilisation advance to NHAI not liable for deduction of tax at source u/s 194A - ITAT Interest…

3 days ago
  • Income Tax

Typographical error in turnover accepted during assessment not a mistake apparent from record

Typographical error in turnover declared in ITR was not as a mistake apparent from the record u/s 154 when AO…

5 days ago
  • Income Tax

Plea that assessee was not aware of order cannot be brushed aside in absence of proof of service

Ground taken by assessee that he was not aware of the order cannot be brushed aside so lightly in absence…

5 days ago