SARAVANAN ARUMUGAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

55A cannot be acceded at the fag end of the time barring date. 3.0 The Ld. Counsel of the assessee further submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) affirmed the action of the Ld. AO without properly appreciating true facts of the case. It is the case of the assessee that section 50C mandating stamp duty valuation is different than section

SUBASH SUBRAMANIAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

price mentioned by the assessee in the sale deed alone could be considered for working out capital gains. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative strongly 10. supported the orders of the authorities below. :- 6 -: 11. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. It is true that there was a pending litigation on the property

SARAVANAN PRIYA ,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW 15(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

55A of the Act, with a view to ascertaining the fair market value of a capital asset, the AO may refer the valuation of capital asset to a DVO in certain circumstances. In the instant case, the circumstance is that the fair market value of the asset exceeds the value of the asset as claimed by the assessee by more