Remember me | Recover password
The Supreme Court accepted such contention and
Even while referring to Amiya case (supra) the Calcutta High Court in Hotel Mount View v. CIT (2005) 148TAX532 held that application of section 55A is not confined for the purpose of computation of capital gains. It held that Capital asset is defined in section 2(14) to include capital asset used in connection with business also for which reason valuation of capital asset may be for the purpose of computing capital gains or for the purpose of computing income from business, both of which are dealt with under Chapter IV. The Court further derived this view on the basis of use of the word 'purposes' meaning thereby that it is not made for one purpose namely for the purpose of computing capital gains but for other purposes contemplated under Chapter IV.
The Calcutta High decision would therefore question the very insertion of new section 142A calling upon the valuation officer to estimate the cost of construction of property. Perhaps in the light of decision of the Calcutta High Court the Supreme Court may have to review their earlier decision in Amiya (supra) case.
The decision of the Calcutta High Court may therefore provide an opportunity to the revenue to reopen even assessments completed before 30th September 2004. In the right course the revenue may go for review of Supreme Court decision in Amiya (supra) case.
In yet another decision the P&H High Court in CIT v. Krishan Lal Dua (2005) 149TAX126 following the Supreme Court decision in Amiya (supra) case denounced action of the assessing officer in making reassessment on the basis of valuation report obtained. The Court held that section 142A specifically exclude cases including assessee's case where assessments have become final on or before 30th September 2004.