<?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 (10) TMI 1051 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176203</link>
    <description>For capital gains computation, transfer may arise on handing over possession in part performance of an agreement under section 2(47)(v) read with section 53A, rather than only on execution of the registered sale deed. The document also notes that section 50C should not be applied mechanically where the difference between declared consideration and the Valuation Officer&#039;s estimate is marginal and within normal valuation variance. On the facts, inconsistent recitals on the date of possession created doubt as to the precise transfer date, and the addition made by the Assessing Officer was found unsustainable; the CIT(A)&#039;s deletion was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 May 2023 16:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=409293" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (10) TMI 1051 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176203</link>
      <description>For capital gains computation, transfer may arise on handing over possession in part performance of an agreement under section 2(47)(v) read with section 53A, rather than only on execution of the registered sale deed. The document also notes that section 50C should not be applied mechanically where the difference between declared consideration and the Valuation Officer&#039;s estimate is marginal and within normal valuation variance. On the facts, inconsistent recitals on the date of possession created doubt as to the precise transfer date, and the addition made by the Assessing Officer was found unsustainable; the CIT(A)&#039;s deletion was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176203</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>