<?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>1982 (8) TMI 18 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28390</link>
    <description>An appeal under section 269H of the Income-tax Act lay only on a question of law, so the High Court declined interference with the Tribunal&#039;s valuation findings. The Tribunal&#039;s assessment of fair market value, rejection of the departmental valuer&#039;s report, and acceptance of valuation on annual rental basis were treated as findings of fact based on appraisal of evidence. In the absence of the valuation officer before the Tribunal, it was open to the Tribunal to consider the material on record and reject the departmental valuation, including the Kanpur Index addition. No perversity or jurisdictional error was shown, and the acquisition order remained undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Aug 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 12:02:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=67387" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (8) TMI 18 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28390</link>
      <description>An appeal under section 269H of the Income-tax Act lay only on a question of law, so the High Court declined interference with the Tribunal&#039;s valuation findings. The Tribunal&#039;s assessment of fair market value, rejection of the departmental valuer&#039;s report, and acceptance of valuation on annual rental basis were treated as findings of fact based on appraisal of evidence. In the absence of the valuation officer before the Tribunal, it was open to the Tribunal to consider the material on record and reject the departmental valuation, including the Kanpur Index addition. No perversity or jurisdictional error was shown, and the acquisition order remained undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Aug 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28390</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>