https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27761 Incidental stamp, registration and execution borne by the transferee do not form part of the apparent consideration for transfer of immovable property; only the sale price stated in the deed is relevant. On the acquisition question, the valuation findings accepted by the fact-finding authorities were treated as sufficient to attract the statutory threshold, and no rebuttal evidence was led by the transferees to displace the inference. The court found no basis to interfere with the Chapter XXA acquisition order, and the acquisition of the house was affirmed. en-us Fri, 29 Jul 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Feb 2010 18:28:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27761 Incidental stamp, registration and execution borne by the transferee do not form part of the apparent consideration for transfer of immovable property; only the sale price stated in the deed is relevant. On the acquisition question, the valuation findings accepted by the fact-finding authorities were treated as sufficient to attract the statutory threshold, and no rebuttal evidence was led by the transferees to displace the inference. The court found no basis to interfere with the Chapter XXA acquisition order, and the acquisition of the house was affirmed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 29 Jul 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27761