Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The ITAT held that the addition made by the AO on account of the difference between the stamp duty value and the actual sale consideration was not justified without referring the matter to the DVO as mandated under Sections 50C and 55A of the Act. The tribunal found that the fair market value claimed by the assessee was lower than the stamp duty value, and the AO was obligated to seek valuation from the DVO to resolve the discrepancy. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the AO's order without such reference, rendering the appellate order arbitrary and legally unsustainable. The ITAT also noted the failure of the CIT(A) to conduct an inquiry under Section 250(4) and (6). Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, directing the AO to comply with the statutory provisions regarding valuation.
The ITAT held that the addition made by the AO on account of the difference between the stamp duty value and the actual sale consideration was not justified without referring the matter to the DVO as mandated under Sections 50C and 55A of the Act. The tribunal found that the fair market value claimed by the assessee was lower than the stamp duty value, and the AO was obligated to seek valuation from the DVO to resolve the discrepancy. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the AO's order without such reference, rendering the appellate order arbitrary and legally unsustainable. The ITAT also noted the failure of the CIT(A) to conduct an inquiry under Section 250(4) and (6). Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, directing the AO to comply with the statutory provisions regarding valuation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
