https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58212 In acquisition proceedings under Chapter XX-A, the Tribunal held that the Department had not proved understatement of consideration by reliable, comparable and cogent valuation evidence. The fair market value was not shown to exceed the apparent consideration by the prescribed statutory margin, as the departmental valuation depended mainly on non-comparable instances and insufficient proof of excess value. As that foundational requirement failed, the consequential acquisition under section 269F(6) could not be sustained and was set aside. The Tribunal also noted that objections on initiation and hearing did not affect the result on the merits, because the statutory basis for acquisition itself was not established. en-us Tue, 03 Oct 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Dec 2010 18:19:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58212 In acquisition proceedings under Chapter XX-A, the Tribunal held that the Department had not proved understatement of consideration by reliable, comparable and cogent valuation evidence. The fair market value was not shown to exceed the apparent consideration by the prescribed statutory margin, as the departmental valuation depended mainly on non-comparable instances and insufficient proof of excess value. As that foundational requirement failed, the consequential acquisition under section 269F(6) could not be sustained and was set aside. The Tribunal also noted that objections on initiation and hearing did not affect the result on the merits, because the statutory basis for acquisition itself was not established. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 03 Oct 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58212