These are Departmental appeals, whereas cross objections are by assessee. They were heard together and are being disposed of by combined order, for sake of convenience. question involved is valuation of immovable property situated in commercial centre of Safdarjang Development Area in South Delhi. said building has been let out to Oil & Natural Gas Commission and it is common ground between parties that value of said building should be worked out by adopting yield method. dispute primarily centres round: (i) Computation of annual letting value, and (ii) number of year s purchase of said annual letting value to be adopted for purpose of capitalising yield. dispute regarding determination of ALV is with regard to two points only, namely, whether 1/6th of rent should be deducted for repairs or it should be 1/10th of rent. Valuation Officer has allowed 10 per cent deduction for repairs on ground that provisions of IT Act were not necessarily applicable while determining ALV for purposes of Wealth-tax. About collection charges, there was similar dispute. assessee claimed 6 per cent of rent as collection charges whereas on behalf of Revenue, it was stated that there was no evidence to support claim of 6 per cent collection charges and that assessee might not have spent more than 2 per cent on this account. assessee challenged correctness of above finding given by VO and adopted by WTO before CIT(A) and pleaded before him that claim made by assessee were reasonable and should have been allowed by WTO. It was pleaded by IAC(Asst.) before CIT(A) that in case of new property, repairs would be very low and, therefore, allowance for repairs charged at 1/12th as allowed was quite reasonable. ld. CIT(A) however, did not accept is. So pointed out that, "this is not very correct approach because, if it implied that allowance for repairs has to vary from year to year depending upon age of property, it would certainly be more reasonable and practical to adopt uniform allowed for repairs at 1/6th of annual value as is done under IT Act." About collection charges, similarly, he directed that same can be reasonably allowed @ 6 per cent of annual value to take are of all matters pertaining to collection of rents and provisions of all related facilities. Department is aggrieved of aforesaid finding of ld. CIT(A). According to Departmental Representative, and VO, figures adopted by VO were more realistic and that assessee had not substantiated his claim with regard to aforesaid allowance at rates allowed by ld. CIT(A). On behalf of assessee, ld. counsel submitted that allowance in question could not vary from year to year and that, therefore, they had to be estimated figure which would enure from year to year on average basis and figure adopted by ld. CIT(A) in this connection were not unrealistic. We have given careful consideration to facts of case and rival submission. It is true that what would be question of deduction for repairs and for collection charges was to depend on facts of each case and, there can be no uniform formula for same as is position while determining income from property under s. 24 of IT Act, 1961 debars state of repairing building. It is also true that it is not actual of such year that have to be allowed for aforesaid purpose. It is average figure averaged out over number of years on basis of which one has to base ones estimate of expenses for repairs and for collection charges. In present case, ld. CWT(A) has given finding that it would be reasonable to allow to assessee 1/6th for repairs and 6 per cent for collection of rent. So far as estimate for repairs is concerned, it does not appear to us to be excessive. Even, according to ld. Departmental Representative in every alternate year assessee has to get property whitewashed and repaired. floor area of building is approximately 6503 sq. ft. whitewashing charges and repair charges for aforesaid area @ Rs. 13,950 approx. cannot, in our opinion be said to be extravagant or excessive. order of ld. CWT(A) on this account, therefore, appears to us to be correct on parts and we uphold it. As regards collection charges, however, amount allowed by ld. CWT(A) is Rs. 5,021. This amount is capable of quantification and assessee should is Rs. 5,021. This amount is capable of quantification and assessee should have led some evidence in support of it. Even under IT Act, 6 per cent is not flat rate at which expenses have to be allowed. That is ceiling upto which expenses can be allowed. But what is really allowed is actual amount spent. estimate of ld. VO @ 2 per cent of rent received by assessee cannot be said to be underestimate taking into account fact that estimate taking into account fact that ONGC is tenant of assessee and nothing has been shown to us to prove that assessee had to spend some amount for getting cheques from them. To presume that ONGC would be slow in giving their cheques to assessee would be presumption without any basis. cheques, etc. might be getting cleared and expenses in regard thereto might be incurred. Occasionally somebody might be visiting ONGC office in connection with lease. overall expenditure of 2 per cent which works out to more than Rs. 2,000 per annum cannot be said to be on lower side. ld. CWT(A) was therefore, not correct in presuming that assessee would have to spend on average upto 6 per cent of rental income very year for collection charges. estimate at 2 per cent appears to us to be more realistic. On this point, therefore, we reverse order of ld. CWT(A) and restore that of WTO. That brings us to question of expected yield from property on basis of which one has to determine capitalisation of rental income. Departmental VO has proceeded on footing that 7per cent to 8 per cent would be expected yield from commercial property in Delhi, whereas ld. CIT(A) has proceeded on footing that expected yield would be anywhere between 12 per cent to 14 per cent in year under consideration. On behalf of Revenue, order of WTO is supported, on behalf of assessee, order of CWT(A) is supported. In case of commercial properties expectation of yield is certainly higher than that in case of residential properties. In case of residential properties, rate of 8 per cent in adopted in terms of r. 1BB of WT Rules, 1957. expectation of yield in case of commercial properties would, therefore, be more than above yield. ld. Departmental VO was, therefore not correct in adopting rate of yield at about 7 per cent to 8 per cent in case of commercial properties. There is, however, no basis for adopting figure of yield at 12 per cent to 14 per cent as done by CWT(A) in his order. What affected his thinking may be noted in his own words as follows: "On second important question viz. question of multiplication factor, I agree that investment in property cannot be compared with investment in gilt edged securities. It is agreed position that investment in commercial properties is expected to bring higher rate of interest than even interest on long terms deposit because investment in properties carried higher risk factor. Considering rate of return on long term deposits in years involved in present appeal it would be reasonable to keep multiplication factor at 8 times net annual value in asst. yrs. 1976-77 and 1977-78. This would imply rate of return of 12.5 per cent. This multiplication factor for asst. yrs. 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81 can be reasonably fixed at 7 times net annual value which would imply rage of return of 14.2 per cent." ld. CIT(A) has patently erred in comparing yield form properties with yield on long term deposits and in holding that risk factor in case of properties was more. Anybody who is familiar with trend in sale of real estate market over period from 1950 onwards would be able to appreciate that trend in values of real estate have been multigated upward curve. There is, therefore, no question of there being risk involved in investment in properties. When person makes investment in property, he takes into account not only expected yield from rent but phenomenal rise in prices in real estate over last few decades. To presume, therefore, that on account of risk involved expectation of yield from commercial properties would be higher is not understandable. Rule 1BB itself gives us guidance with regard to expected yield from commercial properties. According to said Rule, yield from non-residential portion of building should be taken at 9 per cent. Rule 1BB of course, does not apply when property is exclusively commercial. It nevertheless gives indication of expectation of yield from residential property and non-residential property. said rule was inserted w.e.f. 1st April, 1979 and, therefore, takes into account exception of yield from commercial properties prevailing in and about said period i.e. 1979-80. In our opinion, therefore, it would be more realistic in period i.e. 1979-80. In our opinion, therefore, it would be more realistic in absence of any evidence to contrary, to adopt 9 per cent rate of expected yield and, therefore, to adopt 100/9 as capitalisation factor. Accordingly, order of CWT(A) stands modified. In result, Departmental appeals stand partly allowed. Cross objection Through cross objections, assessee s ld. counsel has covered more or less same grounds as has been covered by arguments and facts mentioned above. cross objections of assessee, therefore, stand rejected. *** INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. SMT. SAROJ TALWAR