https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460244 The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) erred by not referring the valuation to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) under Section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the assessee contested the jantri price. Despite the Collector reducing the jantri price, the Tribunal emphasized that a DVO reference is mandatory when the stamp duty value is disputed, as established in Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the case for fresh proceedings, requiring the AO to refer the matter to the DVO to ensure compliance with procedural mandates. en-us Fri, 29 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Jan 2025 20:32:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460244 The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) erred by not referring the valuation to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) under Section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the assessee contested the jantri price. Despite the Collector reducing the jantri price, the Tribunal emphasized that a DVO reference is mandatory when the stamp duty value is disputed, as established in Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the case for fresh proceedings, requiring the AO to refer the matter to the DVO to ensure compliance with procedural mandates. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 29 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460244