<?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>2009 (9) TMI 59 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34909</link>
    <description>Section 50C(2) requires the assessment to await the Valuation Officer&#039;s report where the assessee invokes the statutory safeguard against stamp valuation being adopted as full value of consideration. The Madras HC held that finalising the assessment before receipt of that report denied the assessee the protection built into the capital gains computation mechanism, so the assessment order was unsustainable and was quashed for fresh consideration after the valuation certificate. The Court also held that the existence of an appellate remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction on these facts, because the statutory safeguard had been effectively defeated by the premature assessment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Dec 2012 16:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73520" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (9) TMI 59 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34909</link>
      <description>Section 50C(2) requires the assessment to await the Valuation Officer&#039;s report where the assessee invokes the statutory safeguard against stamp valuation being adopted as full value of consideration. The Madras HC held that finalising the assessment before receipt of that report denied the assessee the protection built into the capital gains computation mechanism, so the assessment order was unsustainable and was quashed for fresh consideration after the valuation certificate. The Court also held that the existence of an appellate remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction on these facts, because the statutory safeguard had been effectively defeated by the premature assessment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34909</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>