<?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>2009 (11) TMI 943 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185009</link>
    <description>The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision in accordance with the law, ensuring due process for the assessee. The Appellate Tribunal emphasized that the Assessing Officer should have referred the matter to the DVO for valuation when an assessee objects to the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority under section 50C of the Income-tax Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2016 17:51:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=436336" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (11) TMI 943 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185009</link>
      <description>The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision in accordance with the law, ensuring due process for the assessee. The Appellate Tribunal emphasized that the Assessing Officer should have referred the matter to the DVO for valuation when an assessee objects to the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority under section 50C of the Income-tax Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185009</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>