<?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>1987 (5) TMI 53 - ITAT BOMBAY-D</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58870</link>
    <description>Failure to make necessary enquiry into the valuation of gifted property can render an assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, justifying revision under section 24(2) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958. Here, the assessment accepted the assessee&#039;s old investment cost as market value without adequate investigation despite the time gap and possible appreciation, so revisional jurisdiction was properly invoked for fresh enquiry. Non-supply of the valuation report did not vitiate the revisional order because it was not used to make an immediate enhancement, and the assessee was to be heard in the de novo proceedings. The revisional order was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 May 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Dec 2010 15:44:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=97325" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (5) TMI 53 - ITAT BOMBAY-D</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58870</link>
      <description>Failure to make necessary enquiry into the valuation of gifted property can render an assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, justifying revision under section 24(2) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958. Here, the assessment accepted the assessee&#039;s old investment cost as market value without adequate investigation despite the time gap and possible appreciation, so revisional jurisdiction was properly invoked for fresh enquiry. Non-supply of the valuation report did not vitiate the revisional order because it was not used to make an immediate enhancement, and the assessee was to be heard in the de novo proceedings. The revisional order was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 May 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58870</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>