https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236639 The Tribunal held that despite a collaboration agreement, the petitioner retained ownership of the property as there was no evidence of title transfer. The property was valued at residential rates, rejecting the petitioner's claim under Section 7(4) due to substantial possession by the builder for commercial purposes. The judgment favored the Assessing Officer's valuation, affirming the petitioner's continued co-ownership and dismissing the transfer of title. The decision upheld the application of residential rates for valuation, concluding against the petitioner on property ownership and valuation issues. en-us Wed, 21 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 31 Jan 2014 18:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236639 The Tribunal held that despite a collaboration agreement, the petitioner retained ownership of the property as there was no evidence of title transfer. The property was valued at residential rates, rejecting the petitioner's claim under Section 7(4) due to substantial possession by the builder for commercial purposes. The judgment favored the Assessing Officer's valuation, affirming the petitioner's continued co-ownership and dismissing the transfer of title. The decision upheld the application of residential rates for valuation, concluding against the petitioner on property ownership and valuation issues. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Wed, 21 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236639