https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775300 The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer erred in not referring the matter to the DVO under Section 50C(2) despite the sale consideration being significantly lower than the stamp duty value. The tribunal found that the fair market value claimed by the assessee was less than the stamp duty value, and the AO was mandated to obtain the DVO's valuation to resolve this discrepancy. The CIT(A) and NFAC wrongly upheld the AO's decision, failing to conduct the necessary enquiry under Section 250(4) & (6). The ITAT ruled that the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC was arbitrary and bad in law, allowing the assessee's appeal and directing adherence to the statutory provisions for fair market value determination. en-us Thu, 26 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Jul 2025 08:29:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775300 The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer erred in not referring the matter to the DVO under Section 50C(2) despite the sale consideration being significantly lower than the stamp duty value. The tribunal found that the fair market value claimed by the assessee was less than the stamp duty value, and the AO was mandated to obtain the DVO's valuation to resolve this discrepancy. The CIT(A) and NFAC wrongly upheld the AO's decision, failing to conduct the necessary enquiry under Section 250(4) & (6). The ITAT ruled that the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC was arbitrary and bad in law, allowing the assessee's appeal and directing adherence to the statutory provisions for fair market value determination. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 26 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775300