<?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>2015 (11) TMI 866 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268057</link>
    <description>An unperformed or unproven agreement to sell, even with asserted possession, does not displace a registered transfer for capital gains purposes where the sale deeds are later executed and the transfer is brought on record; on those facts, the transfer is treated as taking effect on registration, not in the earlier years claimed. Where section 50C is already in force by the time of registration, stamp valuation becomes relevant for computing full value of consideration. The assessed status must also follow the registered documents and surrounding material: the gains were treated as belonging to the individual owners rather than the HUF, and the HUF character was not accepted for the disputed properties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2015 06:39:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=405701" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 866 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268057</link>
      <description>An unperformed or unproven agreement to sell, even with asserted possession, does not displace a registered transfer for capital gains purposes where the sale deeds are later executed and the transfer is brought on record; on those facts, the transfer is treated as taking effect on registration, not in the earlier years claimed. Where section 50C is already in force by the time of registration, stamp valuation becomes relevant for computing full value of consideration. The assessed status must also follow the registered documents and surrounding material: the gains were treated as belonging to the individual owners rather than the HUF, and the HUF character was not accepted for the disputed properties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268057</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>