<?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>2010 (3) TMI 886 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122481</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal, confirming that section 50C applies only to the seller for capital gains computation and not to the purchaser for determining undisclosed investments under section 69B. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was based on presumption without concrete evidence, and the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the addition was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2023 13:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=159466" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (3) TMI 886 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122481</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal, confirming that section 50C applies only to the seller for capital gains computation and not to the purchaser for determining undisclosed investments under section 69B. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was based on presumption without concrete evidence, and the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the addition was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122481</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>