Skip to main content

Valuation and stamp duty of a decreed immovable property

In Pinak Bharat & Co. vs Anil Ramrao Naik, the High Court at Bombay has dealt with the issue of valuation of immovable property and its stamp duty in execution of a decree or an award.

The court said that in such situations, the following questions have come up:-

1) When submitted for adjudication under the Maharashtra Stamp Act, how should the authority, the Collector of Stamps, assess the ‘market value’ of the property?
2) Is he required to accept the value of the accepted bid, as stated in the court-issued sale certificate? 3) Is he required to spend time and resources on an independent enquiry?
4) Or is some of the available material on the record of this Court, and which underlies the auction sale, sufficient for his purposes?
5) Is there a meaningful distinction to be drawn between sales by the government and government bodies at a predetermined price, which has to be accepted by the adjudicating authority as the market value, and a sale by or through a court?

The Court decided that is such situation as a general practice:
(a) Where there is a sale by private treaty, the usual course stipulated in the Maharashtra Stamp Act will apply;
(b) Where the sale is by the Court, i.e. through the office of the Sheriff, or by the Court Receiver in execution, and is by public auction pursuant to a valuation having been previously obtained, then—

(i) If the sale price is at or below the valuation obtained, then the valuation will serve as the current market value;

(ii) If the final sale price, i.e. the final bid, is higher than the valuation, then the final bid amount and the not the valuation will be taken as the current market value for the purposes of stamp;

(iii) Where there are multiple valuations obtained, then the highest of the valuations most recent, i.e. most proximate in time to the actual sale, should be taken as the current market value.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more