https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191027 The court held that the Income-tax Officer (ITO) has the authority to refer the valuation of a capital asset to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) for assessing the cost of construction under Sections 131, 133(6), and 142(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal's interpretation that the ITO lacked this power was deemed erroneous. The judgment emphasized a liberal interpretation of machinery provisions to aid the enforcement of charging provisions. Any incorrect reference to a specific provision in the requisition memo does not invalidate the valuation report. The decision in CIT v. Smt. Amiya Bala Paul was upheld, with no costs awarded. en-us Wed, 19 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Mar 2017 11:04:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191027 The court held that the Income-tax Officer (ITO) has the authority to refer the valuation of a capital asset to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) for assessing the cost of construction under Sections 131, 133(6), and 142(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal's interpretation that the ITO lacked this power was deemed erroneous. The judgment emphasized a liberal interpretation of machinery provisions to aid the enforcement of charging provisions. Any incorrect reference to a specific provision in the requisition memo does not invalidate the valuation report. The decision in CIT v. Smt. Amiya Bala Paul was upheld, with no costs awarded. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 19 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191027