https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758620 ITAT Chennai quashed Pr.CIT's revision order under section 263 regarding difference between stamp duty value and documentary value for property transactions. The tribunal held that mere difference in guideline value versus sale consideration cannot justify revision as erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The AO's quasi-judicial assessment was conducted lawfully, and valuation differences constitute debatable issues requiring material evidence of tax avoidance. Following precedents including Gabriel India Ltd and CIT vs Mrs.Padmavathy, the tribunal ruled that revision powers cannot be exercised solely based on valuation estimates without establishing both erroneous assessment and revenue prejudice. en-us Fri, 30 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Sep 2024 15:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758620 ITAT Chennai quashed Pr.CIT's revision order under section 263 regarding difference between stamp duty value and documentary value for property transactions. The tribunal held that mere difference in guideline value versus sale consideration cannot justify revision as erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The AO's quasi-judicial assessment was conducted lawfully, and valuation differences constitute debatable issues requiring material evidence of tax avoidance. Following precedents including Gabriel India Ltd and CIT vs Mrs.Padmavathy, the tribunal ruled that revision powers cannot be exercised solely based on valuation estimates without establishing both erroneous assessment and revenue prejudice. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 30 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758620