Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The assessee objected to the valuation report prepared by the district valuation officer and the stamp duty rate. The assessing officer referred the matter to the district valuation officer, but the officer reiterated the valuation made in the seller's case, stating no need for a fresh valuation. The ITAT held that u/s 50C, if the assessee objects to the adopted deemed consideration, the assessing officer must refer to the district valuation officer for a fresh valuation. As the assessing officer failed to obtain a fresh valuation report after giving the assessee an opportunity to represent before the DVO, the addition deserves deletion. The ITAT emphasized that the valuation made for the seller cannot be applicable to the buyer, as the parties' perspectives and reasons may differ. Sections 50C/56(2)(viia) and 43CA provide for valuation qua the assessee, not the property. The DVO's refusal to consider the assessee's objections and failure to make a fresh valuation violates Section 142A(4). Even considering a discount for obstructions and tolerance limit, no addition could be made. Regarding the validity of reassessment, the ITAT dismissed the grounds, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, finding tangible material for reopening. However, the.
The assessee objected to the valuation report prepared by the district valuation officer and the stamp duty rate. The assessing officer referred the matter to the district valuation officer, but the officer reiterated the valuation made in the seller's case, stating no need for a fresh valuation. The ITAT held that u/s 50C, if the assessee objects to the adopted deemed consideration, the assessing officer must refer to the district valuation officer for a fresh valuation. As the assessing officer failed to obtain a fresh valuation report after giving the assessee an opportunity to represent before the DVO, the addition deserves deletion. The ITAT emphasized that the valuation made for the seller cannot be applicable to the buyer, as the parties' perspectives and reasons may differ. Sections 50C/56(2)(viia) and 43CA provide for valuation qua the assessee, not the property. The DVO's refusal to consider the assessee's objections and failure to make a fresh valuation violates Section 142A(4). Even considering a discount for obstructions and tolerance limit, no addition could be made. Regarding the validity of reassessment, the ITAT dismissed the grounds, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, finding tangible material for reopening. However, the.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
