https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26835 In proceedings under Chapter XX-A, the onus of proving fair market value and the basis for acquisition rested on the competent authority, and acquisition could not be sustained on assumptions or inadequate evidence. The Karnataka High Court noted that the Tribunal had co-extensive power to reappreciate the material, including comparable transactions and the departmental valuation report, and found the evidence insufficient to support understatement of apparent consideration by more than 25%. The Court saw no legal error in that appraisal and held that remand was unnecessary where cogent proof had not been marshalled, so the cancellation of the acquisition order was upheld. en-us Wed, 06 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:11:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26835 In proceedings under Chapter XX-A, the onus of proving fair market value and the basis for acquisition rested on the competent authority, and acquisition could not be sustained on assumptions or inadequate evidence. The Karnataka High Court noted that the Tribunal had co-extensive power to reappreciate the material, including comparable transactions and the departmental valuation report, and found the evidence insufficient to support understatement of apparent consideration by more than 25%. The Court saw no legal error in that appraisal and held that remand was unnecessary where cogent proof had not been marshalled, so the cancellation of the acquisition order was upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 06 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26835