https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383796 The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer (AO) exceeded jurisdiction by referring to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) for property valuation. The Tribunal disregarded DVO reports, directing capital gain calculation based on the registered valuer's report. Rectification under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act was limited to obvious mistakes. Consequently, additions by the AO and CIT(A) were unsustainable, leading to deletion of additional capital gains. The decision clarified AO's limits in referring to DVO and stressed fair market value principles for accurate tax assessment. en-us Mon, 29 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Jul 2019 04:34:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383796 The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer (AO) exceeded jurisdiction by referring to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) for property valuation. The Tribunal disregarded DVO reports, directing capital gain calculation based on the registered valuer's report. Rectification under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act was limited to obvious mistakes. Consequently, additions by the AO and CIT(A) were unsustainable, leading to deletion of additional capital gains. The decision clarified AO's limits in referring to DVO and stressed fair market value principles for accurate tax assessment. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 29 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383796