<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1988 (6) TMI 98 - ITAT MADRAS-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69871</link>
    <description>The court quashed the order of acquisition citing invalid initiation of proceedings, inappropriate property valuation methodology, and procedural non-compliance. The court found the Competent Authority lacked valid reasons for acquisition, deemed the development method unsuitable for property valuation, and highlighted procedural lapses in serving notices to interested parties. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the acquisition order was annulled.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jun 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Apr 2011 15:07:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=108231" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (6) TMI 98 - ITAT MADRAS-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69871</link>
      <description>The court quashed the order of acquisition citing invalid initiation of proceedings, inappropriate property valuation methodology, and procedural non-compliance. The court found the Competent Authority lacked valid reasons for acquisition, deemed the development method unsuitable for property valuation, and highlighted procedural lapses in serving notices to interested parties. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the acquisition order was annulled.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jun 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69871</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>