https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784925 Whether FMV as on 01.04.1981: valuation being an estimate, DVO's expert determination (Rs.3/sq.m.) and appellate appreciation warranted deference; CIT(A) reasonably adopted Rs.5/sq.m. and the ITAT found no perversity in that approach, dismissing the challenge to the FMV. Whether deduction under s.54B limited to registered consideration: CIT(A) construed "purchase" by reference to registered sale deeds (including stamp duty/registration charges); exemption provisions require strict compliance, and the AO and CIT(A)'s concurrent findings were upheld, so the restriction of deduction to Rs.80,62,820/- was sustained. Whether levelling and fencing form cost of acquisition under s.54B: such expenses were incurred to make land fit for cultivation, were not disputed, and are allowable as part of acquisition cost; this ground was allowed. en-us Thu, 18 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Jan 2026 12:20:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784925 Whether FMV as on 01.04.1981: valuation being an estimate, DVO's expert determination (Rs.3/sq.m.) and appellate appreciation warranted deference; CIT(A) reasonably adopted Rs.5/sq.m. and the ITAT found no perversity in that approach, dismissing the challenge to the FMV. Whether deduction under s.54B limited to registered consideration: CIT(A) construed "purchase" by reference to registered sale deeds (including stamp duty/registration charges); exemption provisions require strict compliance, and the AO and CIT(A)'s concurrent findings were upheld, so the restriction of deduction to Rs.80,62,820/- was sustained. Whether levelling and fencing form cost of acquisition under s.54B: such expenses were incurred to make land fit for cultivation, were not disputed, and are allowable as part of acquisition cost; this ground was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 18 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784925