<?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>1976 (9) TMI 93 - ITAT PATNA-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71140</link>
    <description>Minor clerical errors in Gazette publication and service of notice did not invalidate acquisition proceedings where the parties received correct notice, were not misled, and had filed objections; service before Gazette publication was treated as non-fatal because the statutory purpose was met. The Tribunal also upheld the fair market value on the development method, holding that the property&#039;s commercial potential justified the higher valuation and triggered the statutory presumption under section 269C. However, acquisition could not stand for the portions separately transferred to two transferees because no valid initiation under section 269D was shown for those transfers; the remaining acquisition was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Sep 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:45:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=109472" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (9) TMI 93 - ITAT PATNA-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71140</link>
      <description>Minor clerical errors in Gazette publication and service of notice did not invalidate acquisition proceedings where the parties received correct notice, were not misled, and had filed objections; service before Gazette publication was treated as non-fatal because the statutory purpose was met. The Tribunal also upheld the fair market value on the development method, holding that the property&#039;s commercial potential justified the higher valuation and triggered the statutory presumption under section 269C. However, acquisition could not stand for the portions separately transferred to two transferees because no valid initiation under section 269D was shown for those transfers; the remaining acquisition was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Sep 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71140</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>