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

Non-deduction of TDS does not make transaction as unexplained in the hands of deductee – ITAT

Mere non-deduction of TDS by the deductor on a transaction does not change the character of the transaction to make…

2 days ago
  • ICAI

Last date to submit MEF 2026-27 extended to 09.09.2026

ICAI has extended the last date to online submit Multipurpose Empanelment Form (MEF)- 2026-27 from 29th August 2026 to 9th…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Validity of demand u/s 156 for default u/s 115-O, if assessment order u/s 143(3) has Nil demand

Can a demand notice be issued u/s 156 for non-payment of Dividend tax u/s 115-O, when as per assessment order…

4 days ago
  • Income Tax

Issue already examined and adjudicated by CIT(Appeals), can’t be reopened on same set of facts

The issue already examined and adjudicated by the quasi-judicial authority, i.e., CIT(Appeals), cannot be reopened on the same set of…

5 days ago
  • Income Tax

TDS can’t be denied for non deposit of tax deducted by the deductor – High Court

One TDS is deducted, credit has to follow, failure of deductor to deposit the amount to the credit of the…

6 days ago
  • Income Tax

Cash withdrawal from bank can’t be taxed u/s 69C as unexplained expenditure – ITAT

Merely because assessee did not explain purpose of cash withdrawal from bank, it can not be taxed u/s 69C as…

6 days ago