<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2014 (5) TMI 1085 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179273</link>
    <description>Section 55A, as applicable to the relevant assessment year, authorised a reference to the Valuation Officer only where the assessee&#039;s declared value was lower than the fair market value or within the statute&#039;s limited conditions. Because the assessee&#039;s value as on 01.04.1981 was not lower in the manner required, the Assessing Officer could not validly invoke that provision. The later amendment enlarging the scope of section 55A was held inapplicable retrospectively, and binding jurisdictional precedent supported that view. The valuation reference was therefore invalid, the resulting addition could not stand, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2016 10:03:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=417538" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (5) TMI 1085 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179273</link>
      <description>Section 55A, as applicable to the relevant assessment year, authorised a reference to the Valuation Officer only where the assessee&#039;s declared value was lower than the fair market value or within the statute&#039;s limited conditions. Because the assessee&#039;s value as on 01.04.1981 was not lower in the manner required, the Assessing Officer could not validly invoke that provision. The later amendment enlarging the scope of section 55A was held inapplicable retrospectively, and binding jurisdictional precedent supported that view. The valuation reference was therefore invalid, the resulting addition could not stand, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179273</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>