https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784471 The dominant issue was whether, for A.Y. 2011-12, the AO could invoke s.55A to refer the property to the Valuation Officer for determining FMV to compute capital gains where the declared sale consideration was lower than perceived market value. Applying the HC ruling in Hiaben Jayantilal Shah, the Tribunal held that s.55A permits reference only when the AO forms the requisite opinion regarding disturbance of the assessee's claimed cost/FMV under prescribed parameters, and it does not authorize substituting or "disturbing" declared sale consideration merely because it is lower by a specified percentage. Consequently, the reference to the Valuation Officer was held invalid and the assessee's appeal was allowed. en-us Fri, 14 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Jan 2026 14:38:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784471 The dominant issue was whether, for A.Y. 2011-12, the AO could invoke s.55A to refer the property to the Valuation Officer for determining FMV to compute capital gains where the declared sale consideration was lower than perceived market value. Applying the HC ruling in Hiaben Jayantilal Shah, the Tribunal held that s.55A permits reference only when the AO forms the requisite opinion regarding disturbance of the assessee's claimed cost/FMV under prescribed parameters, and it does not authorize substituting or "disturbing" declared sale consideration merely because it is lower by a specified percentage. Consequently, the reference to the Valuation Officer was held invalid and the assessee's appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 14 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784471