https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345189 The court found the reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) under Section 131(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act invalid and the substitution of sale consideration with Fair Market Value (FMV) erroneous. It held that taxing notional profits was impermissible and emphasized the need for concrete evidence. Errors in the DVO's valuation report, including using incorrect rates, were noted. Consequently, the court set aside the CIT (Appeals) order, deleted the addition to the assessee's income, and allowed the appeals in favor of the assessee. en-us Mon, 03 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Jul 2017 08:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345189 The court found the reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) under Section 131(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act invalid and the substitution of sale consideration with Fair Market Value (FMV) erroneous. It held that taxing notional profits was impermissible and emphasized the need for concrete evidence. Errors in the DVO's valuation report, including using incorrect rates, were noted. Consequently, the court set aside the CIT (Appeals) order, deleted the addition to the assessee's income, and allowed the appeals in favor of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 03 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345189