<?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>2013 (12) TMI 1747 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314102</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the levy of interest under section 234B, emphasizing its mandatory nature, dismissing the assessee&#039;s arguments regarding unforeseen tax liability. Regarding the property valuation under section 50C, the Tribunal confirmed that the AO correctly adopted the DVO&#039;s valuation, as it was lower than the Stamp Valuation Authority&#039;s figure, thereby affirming the CIT(A)&#039;s order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 May 2024 14:15:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=753466" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (12) TMI 1747 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314102</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the levy of interest under section 234B, emphasizing its mandatory nature, dismissing the assessee&#039;s arguments regarding unforeseen tax liability. Regarding the property valuation under section 50C, the Tribunal confirmed that the AO correctly adopted the DVO&#039;s valuation, as it was lower than the Stamp Valuation Authority&#039;s figure, thereby affirming the CIT(A)&#039;s order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314102</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>