https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759888 The ITAT Ahmedabad ruled in favor of the assessee in a revision case under Section 263. The assessee, along with two co-owners, purchased immovable property with equal one-third shares. The PCIT challenged the assessment order claiming it was erroneous for not considering fair market value per stamp duty valuation. The ITAT held that the AO had properly examined all relevant details including large cash deposits and property transfer after issuing notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1). Since the assessee provided detailed replies to all queries raised by the AO, the assessment order could not be deemed erroneous or prejudicial to revenue interest. The PCIT's different valuation approach alone was insufficient grounds for revision under Section 263. en-us Tue, 08 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Oct 2024 08:27:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759888 The ITAT Ahmedabad ruled in favor of the assessee in a revision case under Section 263. The assessee, along with two co-owners, purchased immovable property with equal one-third shares. The PCIT challenged the assessment order claiming it was erroneous for not considering fair market value per stamp duty valuation. The ITAT held that the AO had properly examined all relevant details including large cash deposits and property transfer after issuing notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1). Since the assessee provided detailed replies to all queries raised by the AO, the assessment order could not be deemed erroneous or prejudicial to revenue interest. The PCIT's different valuation approach alone was insufficient grounds for revision under Section 263. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 08 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759888