<?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>2006 (5) TMI 305 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118276</link>
    <description>The tribunal partially allowed the revenue&#039;s appeal, directing the AO to recompute the capital gain after providing the assessee with an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and verify the stamp duty rate. The tribunal limited the addition under section 69 to Rs. 52,500 and upheld the deletion of the addition under section 40A(3), determining it fell within the exception under rule 6DD(j). Additionally, the tribunal found no violation of rule 46A in admitting additional evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:11:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=155273" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (5) TMI 305 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118276</link>
      <description>The tribunal partially allowed the revenue&#039;s appeal, directing the AO to recompute the capital gain after providing the assessee with an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and verify the stamp duty rate. The tribunal limited the addition under section 69 to Rs. 52,500 and upheld the deletion of the addition under section 40A(3), determining it fell within the exception under rule 6DD(j). Additionally, the tribunal found no violation of rule 46A in admitting additional evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118276</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>