<?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>2012 (2) TMI 7 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208886</link>
    <description>A remand limited to bifurcation and apportionment of an admitted composite sale price did not permit the Assessing Officer to reopen or enhance the total consideration already accepted under Chapter XXC of the Income-tax Act. The valuation exercise could be used only to split the disclosed sale price between land and the factory building, not to substitute a higher overall consideration. The Assessing Officer was therefore precluded from increasing the accepted sale consideration, and the assessee succeeded on that issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=182343" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (2) TMI 7 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208886</link>
      <description>A remand limited to bifurcation and apportionment of an admitted composite sale price did not permit the Assessing Officer to reopen or enhance the total consideration already accepted under Chapter XXC of the Income-tax Act. The valuation exercise could be used only to split the disclosed sale price between land and the factory building, not to substitute a higher overall consideration. The Assessing Officer was therefore precluded from increasing the accepted sale consideration, and the assessee succeeded on that issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208886</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>