<?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>2011 (9) TMI 1268 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466489</link>
    <description>Section 47-A valuation requires the registering authority to refer undervaluation disputes where the disclosed consideration does not reflect true market value, and the Collector must then determine market value after inquiry and hearing. Rule 5 governs that exercise, while guideline rates under the 2000 Rules are only prima facie aids and cannot be treated as conclusive. Market value must be assessed with reference to the deed execution date and all surrounding circumstances, including location, access, utility, and comparable factors. Applying these principles, the valuation orders were found unsustainable because the authorities considered the materials mechanically and failed to evaluate the relevant circumstances, so the matter required fresh determination after full opportunity to the parties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2026 16:21:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=885541" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (9) TMI 1268 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466489</link>
      <description>Section 47-A valuation requires the registering authority to refer undervaluation disputes where the disclosed consideration does not reflect true market value, and the Collector must then determine market value after inquiry and hearing. Rule 5 governs that exercise, while guideline rates under the 2000 Rules are only prima facie aids and cannot be treated as conclusive. Market value must be assessed with reference to the deed execution date and all surrounding circumstances, including location, access, utility, and comparable factors. Applying these principles, the valuation orders were found unsustainable because the authorities considered the materials mechanically and failed to evaluate the relevant circumstances, so the matter required fresh determination after full opportunity to the parties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466489</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>