<?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>2016 (1) TMI 312 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270520</link>
    <description>The Revenue&#039;s appeal regarding the classification of income from a building sale as capital gains or business income for the A.Y 2007-08 was dismissed. The tribunal upheld the CIT (A)&#039;s decision to treat the income as capital gains due to the lack of evidence contradicting the assessee&#039;s claim that the asset was always intended as an investment. The firm&#039;s business activities and the intention behind holding the property were considered, leading to the affirmation of the capital gains treatment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2016 08:07:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=412374" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 312 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270520</link>
      <description>The Revenue&#039;s appeal regarding the classification of income from a building sale as capital gains or business income for the A.Y 2007-08 was dismissed. The tribunal upheld the CIT (A)&#039;s decision to treat the income as capital gains due to the lack of evidence contradicting the assessee&#039;s claim that the asset was always intended as an investment. The firm&#039;s business activities and the intention behind holding the property were considered, leading to the affirmation of the capital gains treatment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270520</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>