Important Case Laws on principles of valuation of Real Estate
– R.C. Cooper Vs. Union of India, (1970) AIR SC 564
Background In 1970, the Supreme Court, in its judgement on Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union Of India, popularly known as the Bank Nationalization case, held that the Constitution guarantees the right to compensation, that is, the equivalent money of the property compulsorily acquired. The Court also held that a law which seeks to acquire or requisition property for public purposes must satisfy the requirement of Article 19(1)(f). The 25th Constitutional Amendment sought to overcome the restrictions imposed on the government by this ruling. Valuation Related Extract of the judgement The object underlying the principles of valuation is to award, the owner the equivalent of his property with its existing advantages and its potentialities. Where there is an established market for the property acquired the problem of valuation presents little difficulty. Where there is no established market for the property acquired, the object of the principle of valuation must be to pay to the owner for what he has lost, including the benefit of advantages present as well as future, without taking into account the urgency of the acquisition, the disinclination of the owner to part with the property and the benefit which the acquirer is likely to obtain by the acquisition. Compensation to be determined under the Act was for acquisition of the undertaking and when an undertaking is acquired as a unit the principles for determination of compensation must be relevant and appropriate to theacquisition of the entire undertaking. But the Act instead of providing for valuing the entire undertaking as a unit provided for determining the value, reduced by the liabilities, of only some of the components which constituted the undertaking and also provided different methods of determining compensation in respect of each such component. This method is prima facie not a method relevant to the determination of compensation for acquisition of the undertaking, for, the aggregate value of the component-, is not necessarily the value of the entirety of a unit of property acquired, especially, when the property is a going concern with an organised business. On this ground alone acquisition of the undertaking was liable to be declared invalid for it impaired the constitutional guarantee for payment of compensation for acquisition of property by law. The undertaking of a Banking Company taken once as a going concern would ordinarily include the good-will and the value of the unexpired long-term leases in the prevailing conditions in the urban areas. But good-will of the banks was not one of the items in the assets in the schedule. Thus, the value determined by excluding important components of the undertaking such as the good-will and the value of the unexpired period of cases would not be compensation for the undertaking. The view of this Court in Vajravelu Mudaliar that exclusion of potential value amounted to giving inadequate compensation and was not fraud on power had no application ' when valuation of an undertaking was sought to be made by breaking it up -into several heads of assets, and important heads were excluded and others valued by the application of irrelevant principles. Making a provision 'for payment of capitalised annual rental at twelve time the amount of rent cannot reasonably be regarded as payment of compensation having regard to the conditions prevailing in the money market. Again, the annual rent was reduced by several outgoings and the balance was capitalised. The vice of items (v) & (vi) of cl. (1) of Explanation 2 was that they provided for deduction of a capital charge out of the annual rental which according to no rational system of valuing property by capitalisation of the rental method was admissible. The method provided by the Act permitted the annual interest on the amount of the encumbrance to be deducted before capitalisation and the capitalised value was again reduced by the amount of the encumbrance because, the encumbrance included not only those mortgages or capital charges in respect of which the amount had fallen due but also the liability under the mortgage or capital charge whether the period stipulated under the deed creating the encumbrance had expired or not. In effect a single debt was, in determining the compensation, debited twice, first, in computing the value of assets and, again, in computing the liabilities. By the Act, the corresponding new banks took over vacant possession of the lands and buildings belonging to the named banks. The Act instead of taking into account the value of the premises as vacant premises adopted a method which could not be regarded as relevant. Under cl. 3 of Explanation 2 the value of the open land was to be the market value whereas the value of the land with buildings to be taken into account was the value determined by the method of capitalisation of annual rent or market value whichever was less. The Act, therefore, did not specify a relevant principle for determination of compensation for lands and buildings. Conclusion Property means the highest right a man can have to anything, it includes ownership, estates and interest in corporeal things and also rights such as trademarks, copy rights, patents, etc. Court has included all types of property viz tangible or intangible.
– Sorab D. Talati Vs. Joseph Michem, Appeal No. 101 0f 1949 in R.A. Application No. 805 of 1948 Background In the year 1947, when the Rent Control Act of 1947 was enacted for the first time, methodology of working out Standard Rent was not given in the act and hence in this case, Court evolved valuation principles for fixing Standard Rent. In this case Court approved of investment theory of estimation of rent and for the first time decided that comparison of yield on investment in land and building should be made with returns on investment on Gift Edged Security which is to be adopted as basis for fair return. Valuation Related Extract of the judgement Court stated that “On a consideration of all the prevailing circumstances and the fact that the prevalent return on Gilt Edged Security is slightly over 3%, we think that a net return of 4.50% on the value of land and 5.50% on the cost of buildings cannot be considered in any sense unreasonably large or excessive for a landlord to expect in respect of his investment in an immovable property”. In this case Court allowed 1-1/2% higher return on land value and 2-1/2% higher return than yield on Government Security as fair return on building cost while fixing Standard Rent of the premises. Conclusion The court approved of investment theory to fix standard rent of the rent controlled premises. Return or yield from Gilt Edged Security is the basis for determining the fair return to the landlord for his investments in land & buildings.
Rent Control Acts of other States of India had different provisions for Standard Rent. However all these other acts also provided for investments theory as basis of rent fixation. View of linking yield in real estate with yield on Govt. Security was changed by Supreme Court as late as in 1983 in case of Union of India V/s. Smt. Shantidevi (A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 1190). In said case, S.C. approved of comparison of the yield in real estate investments with the other forms of investment also in addition to yield on Govt. Securities.
– CWT Vs. P.N. Sikand (1977) 107 ITR 922 (SC)
Background The Wealth Tax Officer did not accept the estimate of the valuation and taking the annual rental value of Rs. 1,32,000/- fetched by the property as the basis, computed the net annual rent at Rs. 82,956/- and arrived at the figure of Rs. 8,29,560/- as the value of the property by applying the multiple of ten to the net annual rental value of Rs. 82,956/-. The claim of the assessee to deduct from the value of the property 50 per cent of the unearned increase in the value of the land was rejected on the ground that this claim was based "merely on hypothetical presumptions & quot;. Valuation Related Extract of the judgement Held that in determining the value of the lease- hold interest of the assessee in the land for the purpose of assessment to wealth tax, the price which the leasehold interest would fetch in the open market were it not encumbered or affected by the burden or restriction contained in clause (13) of the lease deed, would have to be reduced by 50 per cent of the unearned increase in the value of the land on the basis of the hypothetical sale on the valuation date. The burden or limitation attaching to the leasehold interest must be taken into account in arriving at the value of the leasehold interest and it cannot be value ignoring the burden or limitation The covenant in clause (13) is clearly a covenant running with the land and it would bind whosoever is the holder of theleasehold interest for the time being. It is a constituent part of the rights and liabilities and advantages and disadvantages which go to make up the leasehold interest and it is an incident which is in the nature of burden, on the leasehold interest. Plainly and indisputably, it has the effect of depressing the value which the leasehold interest would fetch if it were free from this burden or disadvantage. When the leasehold interest in the land has to be valued this burden or disadvantage attaching to the leasehold interest must be duly discounted in estimated the price which the leasehold interest would fetch. To value the leasehold interest on the basis that this burden or disadvantage were to be ignored would be to value an asset different in content and quality from that actually owned by the assessee. Conclusion In determining the values of the leasehold interest of the assessee in the land for the purpose of wealth tax assessment, the price would have to be reduced by 50% of the unearned increase in the value of the land (which is diverted to the lessor).
– Wenger & Co. Vs. DVO (1978) 115 ITR 648 Delhi HC
Background The District Valuation Officer, respondent No. 1, issued a notice dated June 11, 1974, under Section 16A(4) of the W.T. Act to Shri B. M. Tandon, petitioner No, 2, indicating that while he proposed to accept the existing annual letting value for the portions in the occupation of the tenants, he proposed to estimate the fair market value of the portions in the occupation of petitioner No. 1 at Rs. 27,96,000 as on March 31, 1972. Valuation Related Extract of the judgement It is one of the settled principles of valuation that market value has to be ascertained by considering sales of similar properties in the same neighbourhood or similar environment. If there are no such instances of sales available then capitalisation of rent or making some sort of comparative evaluation of sales of other properties is an acceptable mode of valuation. A certain amount of guesswork would be there if no exactly similar instance of sale is available. ln that case an estimate has to be made which need not necessarily be a mathematical calculation. As we find it, the basic material relied upon by respondent No. 1 is the sale price of a similar building in Connaught Place for Rs. 8 lakhs. The calculation arrived at has been cross-checked by him by referring to transactions of ownership of commercial flats in Connaught Place Extension Area and the resolutions of a conference of 200 valuers in India held at Bombay in June, 1972. The estimated rental method adopted by respondent No. 1 was not his innovation but an accepted method. Conclusion Combination of methods (Owner occupied – sale comparison & tenanted portion – capitalization method) – adopted by DVO and his approach is not only acceptable but also in accordance with the principles of evaluation.
Background The appellant is the owner of 18 gunthas of land, i.e., 2178 sq. yards, situated in Ward No. 5, Block No. 7 in Adilabad Municipality of A.P., which was proposed for acquisition under notification issued under Section (1) of the Land Acquisition Act and published on April 17, 1975, for a public purpose. The question, therefore, is whether the Basic Valuation Register is evidence to determine the market value. Valuation Related Extract of the judgement The High Court held that the post notification sale deeds were not admissible as none of the persons connected with them were examined to establish the genuineness of the sales or of similarity of the lands acquired and those covered in the sale transactions. It also rejected the agreements of sales finding them to be those fabricated to inflate the market value. We cannot find fault with the approach made by the High Court in the facts and circumstances of the case. The sales claimed to be comparable were rightly not acted upon. This Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer v. T. Adhinarayan Setty2 in paragraph 9 held that the function of the Court in awarding compensation under the Act is to ascertain the market value of the land at the date of the notification under Section 4(1). The methods of valuation may be (1) opinion of experts (2) the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages; and (3) a number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired. Same was the view in Tribeni Devi v. Collector of Ranchi3. It was reiterated in catena of decisions, vide, Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala4. Therefore, it is settled law that in determining the market value, the Court has to take into account either one or the other three methods to determine market value of thelands appropriate on the facts of a given case to determine the market value. Generally the second method of valuation is accepted as the best. The question, therefore, is whether the Basic Valuation Register would form foundation to determine the market value. Conclusion We hold that the basic value of registration has no statutory base. It cannot form any basis to determine the market value of the acquired lands under Section 23 of the Act. The burden of proof is always on the claimant to prove, in each case the prevailing market value as on the date of notification published in the State Gazette under Section 4(1) of the Act with reference to the sale deeds of the same lands or neighbor 's lands possessed of same or similar advantages and features executed between willing vendor and willing vendee or other relevant evidence in the reference court.
– Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. SLAO, Pune AIR 1988 SC 1652
Background The appellant not being satisfied with the compensation offered by the Land Acquisition officer in respect of his land placed under acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, applied for a reference to a civil court, for determining the market value of the land for awarding compensation to the appellant. Valuation Related Extract of the judgement There was therefore no warrant for ascertaining the present value of Rs.7,000 as if Rs.7,000 would be fetched after 12 years. Now the parcel of land admeasuring 13 acres 7 gunthas comprised in Survey No. 85 which was situated very much in the interior was valued by the Trial Court at Rs. 10,866 per acre (less 20% to account for roads etc.). This parcel of land was valued at Rs.7,000 per acre by the High Court. The High Court had valued the land with the best situation on the Ganeshkhand Road at Rs.20,000 per acre. As against this the appellant's land was valued at mere Rs.7,000 per acre which reflected an unloading by Rs.13,000 per acre which works out at 65%. This pushing down was made to account for its situation in the interior on the premise thatdevelopment would take about 12 years to reach the land under acquisition. If the appellant's land just adjoined the land valued at Rs.20,000 per acre it would have been valued at the same figure of Rs.20,000. It has been valued at Rs.7,000 per acre precisely because it is so situated that development would reach the appellant's land after 12 years as estimated by the High Court. But after 12 years it would become land adjoining to developed area and not land which could be treated as in the interior. Therefore, if present value was to be ascertained it should be ascertained on the basis of present value of land which would fetch Rs.20,000 per acre after 12 years and not present value of land which would fetch Rs.7.000 per acre after 12 years. In fact present value of Rs.20,000 payable at the end of 12 years at 8% would work out at Rs.6942 (.3971 x 20,000 = 6942)1. The High Court was therefore right in valuing the land in interior at Rs.7,000 per acre but wrong in directing that present value of Rs.7,000 payable after 12 years should be ascertained. The last ground is thus well founded. The following factors must be etched on the mental screen: (1) A reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the Court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition officer in his Award unless the same material is produced and proved before the Court. (2) So also the Award of the Land Acquisition officer is not to be treated as a judgment of the trial Court open or exposed to challenge before the Court hearing the Reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition officer and the material utilised by him for making his valuation cannot be utilised by the Court unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the Court to suit in appeal against the Award, approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition officer, as if it were an appellate court. (3) The Court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it. (4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the Court. Of course the materials placed and proved by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose. (5) The market value of land under acquisition has to be determined as on the crucial date of publication of the notification under sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates of Notifications under secs. 6 and 9 are irrelevant). (6) The determination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation (date of publication of notification under sec. 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price. (7) In doing so by the instances method, the Court has to correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value. (8) only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Sometimes instances are rigged up in anticipation of Acquisition of land). (9) Even post notification instances can be taken into account (1) if they are very proximate, (2) genuine and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects. (10) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations: (i) proximity from time angle, (ii) proximity from situation angle. (11) Having identified the instances which provide the index of market value the price reflected therein may be taken as the norm and the market value of the land under acquisition may be deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-a-vis land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. (12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do. (13) The market value of the land under acquisition has there after to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors (14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13) has to be undertaken in a common sense manner as a prudent man of the world of business would do. We may illustrate some such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors: Plus factors Minus factors 1. smallness of size. 1. largeness of area.
2. proximity to a road. 2. situation in the interior at a distances from the Road. 3. frontage on a road. 3. narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to death. 4. nearness to developed area. 4. lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up. 5. regular shape. 5. remoteness from developed locality. 6. level vis-a-vis land 6. some special disadvantageous factor which under acquistion. would deter a purchaser. 7. special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage. (15) The evaluation of these factors of course depends on the facts of each case. There cannot be any hard and fast or rigid rule. Common sense is the best and most reliable guide. For instance, take the factor regarding the size. A building plot of land say 500 to 1000 sq. yds cannot be compared with a large tract or block of land of say l000 sq. yds or more. Firstly while a smaller plot is within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed by preparing a lay out, carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the invested money will be blocked up) and the hazards of an entrepreneur. The factor can be discounted by making a deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approx. between 20% to 50% to account for land required to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The discounting will to some extent also depend on whether it is a rural area or urban area, whether building activity is picking up, and whether waiting period during which the capital of the entrepreneur would be looked up, will be longer or shorter and the attendant hazards. (16) Every case must be dealt with on its own facts pattern bearing in mind all these factors as a prudent purchaser of land in which position the Judge must place himself. (17) These are general guidelines to be applied with understanding informed with common sense. Conclusion The court cannot take into account the award passed by the SLAO unless it is produced and proved before the court. The market value is to be determined as on date of publication of the notification under sec 4 of LAA. Plus factors and minus factors are to be considered while determining the market value.
– CED Vs. Radhadevi Jalan (1968) 67 ITR 761 (Cal)
Background The dispute in this appeal is with regard to the valuation of properties viz., 10/157, Girmajipet, 16/743/32 Grain Market Godown and 16/763/7, near water tank. The accountable person has declared the value of the said properties at Rs. 23, 070, Rs. 58, 080 and Rs. 32, 595 whereas the Asstt. Controller valued the same at Rs. 70, 000, Rs. 1, 13, 000 and Rs. 99, 000 respectively. The accountable person valued the said properties on rental basis. The Asstt. Controller referred the valuation to the Valuation Cell which valued the properties at the above figures which the Asstt. CED adopted. The Valuation Officer valued the properties following the land and building method. He did not accept the rental menthol adopted by the accountable person. On appeal, the Appellate Controller held that the properties have been fully developed and the rental income from these properties have been accepted by the IT Department and therefore, the proper menthol of valuation is only rent capitalisation method. He directed the Asstt. Controller to adopt the rent capitalisation method at 15 times the net rental to ascertain the market value of these properties. Against the same the Revenue has preferred this appeal. Valuation Related Extract of the judgement In out opinion, there is considerable misconception of legal position involved in the argument of Mr. Pal. The contractual rent of Rs. 1,600 per month was payable by the tenant in respect of a building, which at the material time was governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 Under the operation of the varios rent restrictions Acts, which have been operating in this State for now well over quarter of a century, landlords have lost the right of letting out their houses at any rent they choose and of evicting tenants on such grounds as appeal to them. Contractual relationship between landlords and tenants have given way to statutory relationship imported by successive rent restriction Acts and the position now is that houses may be let out only at fair rents and at no more. If premises can no longer be let out at such rent as the landlord may expect or aspire, then however costly the premises may otherwise be, their value have to be determined on the basis of the limitations imposed by the statute. Lastly, in case of buildings, which are in possession of tenants and the tenants cannot either be evicted or the rent payable by them enhanced, except in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Control Act, the only appropriate method of valuation is to capitalise the annual rent by certain number of years purchase. The method of valuing the land and the building separately and adding up the values would be improper in such cases, because that would ignore the impact of the Rent Control Act on the value of the land and the building. Conclusion Rented properties must be valued by rental method. In case of building which are in possession of tenant and the tenants cannot either be evicted or the rent payable by them cannot be enhanced, except in accordance with the provisions of the rent act, the only appropriate method of valuation is to capitalise the annual rent by certain number of year’s purchase. The method of valuing the land and the building separately and adding up the value would be improper in such cases, because that would ignore the impact of the Rent Control Act on the value of the land the building.
– CIT Vs. Ashima Sinha (1979) 116 ITR 26 (Cal)
Background By his communication in writing dated the 13th June, 1974, the IAC, Acquisition Range-I, Calcutta, a competent authority within the meaning of Section 269B of the I.T. Act, 1961, made a reference to the Assistant Valuation Officer, Unit No. III, under Section 269L(1) requiring the latter to determine the fair market value of the said property and make a report. Valuation Related Extract of the judgement We have failed to understand either the principles or the logic of the & quot;reversionary" method of valuation as applied by the Valuation Officer of the department in the instant case. After following the "yield or rental" method and having arrived at a figure the Valuation Officer has added to it the value of an imaginary reversion in future. We invited Mr. Pal to cite any authority which has approved or even indicated this method but he was unable to do so. It is stated in Parks' Valuation (at p. 38) that when a property is valued on rental basis the result is the value of the land and building taken together which cannot afterwards be apportioned. In the method adopted by the Valuation Officer the value of the land is taken twice, being included in the amount arrived at by the & quot;yield or rental" method and again under the " reversionary " method. This is an entirely novel approach but in our view erroneous. Conclusion The court approved of Tribunal’s decision to allow 10% deduction in value to account for sale of undivided share in the property. The court has held that “In the method adopted by the valuation officer, the value of land is taken twice viz, i) the amount included in the yield method and ii) again under the reversionary method. This is a novel approach but in our view is erroneous”. Note : The calcutta high court has virtually held that there is no such thing as ‘Reversionary value’ and the concept of reversionary value is erroneous. It is well known that the courts have to consider only the evidence duly proved and the arguments submitted before them in the court. It seems that the advocates submitting arguments on behalf of the valuation officer have not properly understood the logical reasoning behind the reversionery value and therefore failed in producing proper evidence and properly presenting the concept of reversionary value before the High court. The High court has therefore misled in delivering such absolutely incorrect and erroneous judgement. It needs to be cautioned at this stage, that the judgements of the courts should always be read in the context of the evidence duly proved and arguments submitted before the court and should never be followed blindly. – (Courtesy : Book “Basics in Real Estate valuation”- Mr. H.T. Hardikar – Page 234)
– CIT Vs. Anupkumar Kapoor & others (1980) 125 ITR 684 (Cal)
Background By a letter dated the 3rd August, 1974, the IAC Acquisition, Range I, Calcutta, the competent authority within the meaning of Section 269A(b) read with Section 569B of the Act, referred the matter under Section 269L(1)(a) of the Act to the Valuation Officer, Unit-III, to determine the fair market value of the said property and to submit a report. Valuation Related Extract of the judgement We are unable to accept the contentions of Mr. B. L Pal that the said property was not fully developed or was not fully tenanted. It is undisputed that the total land area of the property is 1 bigha 5 cottahs 3 chittaks and 4 sq. ft. According to the Valuation Officer of the revenue the land which was lying vacant was 115 ft. x 45 ft. corresponding approximately to 7 cottahs 3 chittaks. There is no evidence to show whether this vacant land was one contiguous plot or divided into several plots unconnected with each other. On a simple arithmetical calculation the developed or built up area of the said property covered by the main building and the out-houses was approximately 18 cottahs. Under the prevailing building regulations of the Corporation of Calcutta in the area where the said property is situated 50% of the total land has to be left open in constructing a building. Thus, at least, over 12 cottahs of land had to be left open but the land left open being approximately 7 cottahs 3 chittaks was less than the requirement under the said building regulations. In our view, there is, therefore, no scope for development of the said property either immediate or in the near future, so long as the existing building and outhouses remained and so long as the tenants did not vacate, who are, no doubt, protected under the rent control legislations. Tenancies in Calcutta are statutorily controlled by the rent control legislations and its impact on the valuation of tenanted properties cannot be ignored. In our view, it would be unreasonable if not absurd to value such property on the basis of a notional market value in disregard of such control. Whether the transferees purchased the said property with an idea of construction of a multistoreyed building therein in future or for some other purpose was wholly immaterial in determining the market value of the said property on the date of its purchase by the transferees. Conclusion The valuation officer under the method adopted by him, has taken the value of the land twice, once in arriving at the figure by the’yield or rental’ method and again in applying the ‘reversionary’ method. This is in our view was wholly wrong. In this case Calcutta court rejected concept of reversionery value of land. The above case was fully tenanted property and obviously therefore land reversion was not possible and hence its value could not be added.
– CIT Vs. Smt. Vimlaben Bhagwandas Patel (1979)118 ITR 134(Guj)
Background Appeal filed in Gujarat High Court against Order of the IAC of Income-tax, Acquisition Range-II, Ahmedabad, passed on January 16, 1975, acquiring two industrial sheds of type-A bearing block Nos. 1/3 and 1/4 situate in the industrial estate set up by the Baroda Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as BIDCO" for the sake of convenience) under s. 269F(6) of the aforesaid Act as the fair market value of the respective sheds exceeded the apparent consideration in the respective instruments of transfer of February 5, 1973, and had not been truly stated with the ulterior object of tax evasion and/or facilitating concealment of income or assets. Valuation Related Extract of the judgement In our opinion, therefore, the just, reasonable and appropriate rate of capitalisation would be eight and one-third times the net average annual income which would give the yield of 12% per annum on the investment of capital in property. The net average annual income may be worked out in the course of application of the rental method of valuation by determining the net average annual income after allowing the proper deductions or outgoings from gross income on account of insurance, taxes, repairs and management or by adopting rough method as provided in cls.(3) and (4) of Sch. II of the Urban Land Ceiling Act by taking 60% of the average annual gross income of the last five years immediately proceeding the initiation of the proceedings and ignoring 40% thereof which should be deducted in lieu of the outgoings. Conclusion The rate of capitalisation should be not unreal and must have regard to the commercial rate of return after taking into consideration the various constraints and insecurities in the property market.
