https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117337 The Tribunal reversed the decision of the CIT (A) and held that the sale consideration declared by the assessee should be adopted for computing capital gain. It criticized the revenue's reliance on the Valuation Officer's report without substantial evidence of understatement, emphasizing the revenue's contradictory approach. The Tribunal also addressed the levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C, ruling in favor of the assessee and highlighting the importance of concrete evidence in tax assessments. en-us Sun, 06 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:13:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117337 The Tribunal reversed the decision of the CIT (A) and held that the sale consideration declared by the assessee should be adopted for computing capital gain. It criticized the revenue's reliance on the Valuation Officer's report without substantial evidence of understatement, emphasizing the revenue's contradictory approach. The Tribunal also addressed the levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C, ruling in favor of the assessee and highlighting the importance of concrete evidence in tax assessments. Case-Laws Income Tax Sun, 06 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117337