<?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>1985 (7) TMI 136 - ITAT BOMBAY-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58165</link>
    <description>Initiation of acquisition proceedings under Section 269C requires material showing both that the apparent consideration falls below fair market value by the statutory margin and that the understatement was made with the object of evading tax. Where the recorded reasons do not disclose the tax-evasion element, the initiation is invalid. On valuation, the apparent consideration was accepted as reflecting fair market value because the property&#039;s incomplete condition, the additional expenditure needed to make it occupiable, comparable sales in the same building, and market conditions at the relevant time all supported the stated price. The acquisition order was therefore unsustainable both on jurisdiction and on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jul 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Dec 2010 16:38:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=96623" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (7) TMI 136 - ITAT BOMBAY-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58165</link>
      <description>Initiation of acquisition proceedings under Section 269C requires material showing both that the apparent consideration falls below fair market value by the statutory margin and that the understatement was made with the object of evading tax. Where the recorded reasons do not disclose the tax-evasion element, the initiation is invalid. On valuation, the apparent consideration was accepted as reflecting fair market value because the property&#039;s incomplete condition, the additional expenditure needed to make it occupiable, comparable sales in the same building, and market conditions at the relevant time all supported the stated price. The acquisition order was therefore unsustainable both on jurisdiction and on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jul 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58165</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>