<?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>Tax Tribunal Upholds DVO&#039;s Property Valuation Over Registered Valuer&#039;s Report u/s 56(2)(vii) and 50C.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85167</link>
    <description>ITAT upheld the valuation report of the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) over the registered valuer&#039;s assessment. The appellant failed to provide substantive evidence to challenge the DVO&#039;s valuation, which they claimed was arbitrary and unreasonable. The assessee&#039;s invocation of section 56(2)(vii) read with section 50C lacked supporting documentation, and no such claim was initially raised during rectification proceedings u/s 154. The CIT(A)&#039;s decision was sustained as the appellant presented mere averments without cogent documentary evidence to invalidate the revenue authorities&#039; determinations. The tribunal found the DVO&#039;s report valid and reasonable, dismissing the appeal against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 25 Jan 2025 08:26:36 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Jan 2025 08:26:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=791823" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Tax Tribunal Upholds DVO&#039;s Property Valuation Over Registered Valuer&#039;s Report u/s 56(2)(vii) and 50C.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85167</link>
      <description>ITAT upheld the valuation report of the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) over the registered valuer&#039;s assessment. The appellant failed to provide substantive evidence to challenge the DVO&#039;s valuation, which they claimed was arbitrary and unreasonable. The assessee&#039;s invocation of section 56(2)(vii) read with section 50C lacked supporting documentation, and no such claim was initially raised during rectification proceedings u/s 154. The CIT(A)&#039;s decision was sustained as the appellant presented mere averments without cogent documentary evidence to invalidate the revenue authorities&#039; determinations. The tribunal found the DVO&#039;s report valid and reasonable, dismissing the appeal against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 25 Jan 2025 08:26:36 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85167</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>