https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235745 The Court found errors in the Assessing Officer's application of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act for property valuation without involving the District Valuation Officer (DVO). The Tribunal's decision to adopt values under Section 50C was deemed incorrect, as objections raised by the assessee were not considered. Allegations of perverse findings were upheld, leading to a remand for proper assessment of capital gains under Section 50C(2) for co-owners. The importance of procedural compliance and addressing taxpayer objections was emphasized for accurate capital gains determination. en-us Mon, 22 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Feb 2015 12:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235745 The Court found errors in the Assessing Officer's application of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act for property valuation without involving the District Valuation Officer (DVO). The Tribunal's decision to adopt values under Section 50C was deemed incorrect, as objections raised by the assessee were not considered. Allegations of perverse findings were upheld, leading to a remand for proper assessment of capital gains under Section 50C(2) for co-owners. The importance of procedural compliance and addressing taxpayer objections was emphasized for accurate capital gains determination. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 22 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235745