<?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>2019 (11) TMI 1231 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388982</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding the Assessing Officer&#039;s valuation based on a higher guideline rate from an adjacent area unsustainable. The addition made under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act was deemed invalid as the sale deed reflected the prescribed value for the specific area. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the addition and concluding in favor of the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Nov 2019 13:23:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=595589" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (11) TMI 1231 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388982</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding the Assessing Officer&#039;s valuation based on a higher guideline rate from an adjacent area unsustainable. The addition made under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act was deemed invalid as the sale deed reflected the prescribed value for the specific area. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the addition and concluding in favor of the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388982</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>