https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776256 Under section 56(2)(x), an earlier allotment letter and part payment did not displace the final registered agreement, because the assessee accepted the operative consideration in the later instrument and failed to prove that the earlier arrangement survived independently. The Tribunal therefore rejected the plea to use 2010 as the valuation date or to extend the first and second provisos on that basis. It also held that the transaction did not belong to the earlier assessment year, as the document was presented for registration only in 2019 and the surrounding record did not support relation back. The 2019 DVO valuation was upheld because no effective contrary valuation evidence was produced. en-us Mon, 28 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Aug 2025 07:04:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776256 Under section 56(2)(x), an earlier allotment letter and part payment did not displace the final registered agreement, because the assessee accepted the operative consideration in the later instrument and failed to prove that the earlier arrangement survived independently. The Tribunal therefore rejected the plea to use 2010 as the valuation date or to extend the first and second provisos on that basis. It also held that the transaction did not belong to the earlier assessment year, as the document was presented for registration only in 2019 and the surrounding record did not support relation back. The 2019 DVO valuation was upheld because no effective contrary valuation evidence was produced. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 28 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776256