<?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>2014 (4) TMI 399 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245928</link>
    <description>Capital gains on a development agreement arise only when the arrangement amounts to a deemed transfer under section 2(47)(v), read with section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; on the stated facts, no development activity or effective performance by the developer was shown, so the agreement did not trigger tax in that year. For the later year, sale consideration for the sixth apartment had to be determined under section 50C through the prescribed valuation procedure where stamp value was disputed, including reference to the Valuation Officer if required; the claimed cost of improvement by rock cutting was rejected for want of supporting evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Apr 2014 14:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351949" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (4) TMI 399 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245928</link>
      <description>Capital gains on a development agreement arise only when the arrangement amounts to a deemed transfer under section 2(47)(v), read with section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; on the stated facts, no development activity or effective performance by the developer was shown, so the agreement did not trigger tax in that year. For the later year, sale consideration for the sixth apartment had to be determined under section 50C through the prescribed valuation procedure where stamp value was disputed, including reference to the Valuation Officer if required; the claimed cost of improvement by rock cutting was rejected for want of supporting evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245928</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>