https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252339 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, reversing the CIT (Appeals) decision on the validity of the assessment and merits of the case. The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Officer (ITO) did not follow directions, improperly referring the matter to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) instead of conducting a proper enquiry. The Tribunal found the reference to the DVO invalid and upheld the assessee's claim on fair market value. Additionally, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on the set-off of unabsorbed depreciation, emphasizing the entitlement to carry it forward despite not conducting business activities during the relevant year. en-us Wed, 20 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Oct 2014 06:27:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252339 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, reversing the CIT (Appeals) decision on the validity of the assessment and merits of the case. The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Officer (ITO) did not follow directions, improperly referring the matter to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) instead of conducting a proper enquiry. The Tribunal found the reference to the DVO invalid and upheld the assessee's claim on fair market value. Additionally, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on the set-off of unabsorbed depreciation, emphasizing the entitlement to carry it forward despite not conducting business activities during the relevant year. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 20 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252339