<?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>1984 (9) TMI 93 - ITAT BOMBAY-D</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58849</link>
    <description>Chapter XX-A could not be invoked where the transaction was, in substance, only an assignment of lease and not a sale of immovable property; at the relevant time, such a transfer was outside the provision&#039;s scope. The preconditions for initiation of acquisition proceedings were also not met because reliable material of understatement and tax-evasion intent was lacking, and notices were not served on all persons known to be interested. The Department&#039;s valuation, based on the conveyance date and unsupported assumptions, was rejected in favour of the registered valuer&#039;s contemporaneous assessment, so understatement of consideration was not established and the acquisition order could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Sep 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=97304" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (9) TMI 93 - ITAT BOMBAY-D</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58849</link>
      <description>Chapter XX-A could not be invoked where the transaction was, in substance, only an assignment of lease and not a sale of immovable property; at the relevant time, such a transfer was outside the provision&#039;s scope. The preconditions for initiation of acquisition proceedings were also not met because reliable material of understatement and tax-evasion intent was lacking, and notices were not served on all persons known to be interested. The Department&#039;s valuation, based on the conveyance date and unsupported assumptions, was rejected in favour of the registered valuer&#039;s contemporaneous assessment, so understatement of consideration was not established and the acquisition order could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Sep 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58849</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>