https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268636 The Tribunal dismissed both Miscellaneous Applications (M.As) filed by the assessee, emphasizing no mistake was apparent from its previous order. The Tribunal upheld its direction for the Assessing Officer to refer the valuation to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) for determining the cost of acquisition as of 01.04.1981, despite the assessee's contention against it. The Tribunal reiterated the binding nature of decisions by Coordinate Benches and jurisdictional High Courts, maintaining its decision without rectification. The order was pronounced on 23.11.2015. en-us Mon, 23 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 29 Nov 2015 17:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268636 The Tribunal dismissed both Miscellaneous Applications (M.As) filed by the assessee, emphasizing no mistake was apparent from its previous order. The Tribunal upheld its direction for the Assessing Officer to refer the valuation to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) for determining the cost of acquisition as of 01.04.1981, despite the assessee's contention against it. The Tribunal reiterated the binding nature of decisions by Coordinate Benches and jurisdictional High Courts, maintaining its decision without rectification. The order was pronounced on 23.11.2015. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 23 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268636