Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2018 (12) TMI 564 - AT - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Appeal Granted: Fair Market Value Set at Rs. 3,50,000. Expert Opinions Emphasized. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to adopt a fair market value of Rs. 3,50,000 per ground as of 01.04.1981 for ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                            Appeal Granted: Fair Market Value Set at Rs. 3,50,000. Expert Opinions Emphasized.

                            The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to adopt a fair market value of Rs. 3,50,000 per ground as of 01.04.1981 for acquisition purposes. It emphasized the need to consider expert opinions and comparable sale instances, rather than relying solely on guideline values maintained by Registration Authorities. The decision was based on a balanced approach, considering various judicial precedents and guidelines for determining market value.




                            Issues Involved:

                            1. Whether the guideline value maintained by Registration Authorities can be the basis for determining the market value for acquisition purposes.
                            2. Validity of the valuation method adopted by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).
                            3. Consideration of expert opinions and comparable sale instances in determining the market value of the property as on 01.04.1981.

                            Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                            1. Guideline Value as Basis for Market Value Determination:

                            The assessee contended that the guideline value maintained by Registration Authorities for checking stamp duty evasion cannot be the basis for determining the market value for acquisition. This argument was supported by various judicial precedents, including decisions from the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, which held that guideline values are limited to stamp duty purposes and do not reflect the true market value for acquisition. The Tribunal considered these precedents and agreed that guideline values alone are not a reliable basis for determining market value under acquisition proceedings.

                            2. Validity of Valuation Method Adopted by Assessing Officer and CIT(A):

                            The Assessing Officer had relied on the Sub-Registrar's opinion, which valued the property at Rs. 50,000 per ground as on 01.04.1981, while the assessee claimed a value of Rs. 5,00,000 per ground. The CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's valuation. The Tribunal noted that the valuation should consider multiple factors, including expert opinions and comparable sale instances, rather than relying solely on guideline values or the Sub-Registrar's opinion.

                            3. Expert Opinions and Comparable Sale Instances:

                            The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's guidelines in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer v. T. Adinarayan Setty, which outlined methods for determining market value, including expert opinions, comparable sale instances, and potential profits. The Tribunal also considered the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT Vs. J.Chelladurai, which suggested averaging the values provided by the assessee and the assessing officer when there is a significant discrepancy.

                            In light of these principles, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to adopt a balanced approach by averaging the values suggested by both parties. Consequently, the Tribunal determined the fair market value of the property as on 01.04.1981 to be Rs. 3,50,000 per ground, which was a compromise between the assessee's claim of Rs. 5,00,000 and the Assessing Officer's valuation of Rs. 50,000.

                            Conclusion:

                            The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal directing the Assessing Officer to adopt the fair market value of Rs. 3,50,000 per ground as on 01.04.1981. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering multiple factors and expert opinions in determining the market value for acquisition purposes, rather than relying solely on guideline values.
                            Full Summary is available for active users!
                            Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                            Topics

                            ActsIncome Tax
                            No Records Found