<?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 407 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270615</link>
    <description>A pre-existing registered leave and licence arrangement prevented the purchaser from receiving the licence fee and physical possession during the stipulated period, so the annual letting value and alleged lease rent did not accrue to the purchaser in that year and were diverted by overriding title in favour of the earlier owner; the corresponding addition was therefore not sustainable. Notional interest on the security deposit was also not assessable, because the deposit arose from the same prior arrangement and there was no entitlement to the underlying rent during the relevant period. The disputed lease-related additions were deleted, and the property income was not taxed in the purchaser&#039;s hands.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=412665" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 407 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270615</link>
      <description>A pre-existing registered leave and licence arrangement prevented the purchaser from receiving the licence fee and physical possession during the stipulated period, so the annual letting value and alleged lease rent did not accrue to the purchaser in that year and were diverted by overriding title in favour of the earlier owner; the corresponding addition was therefore not sustainable. Notional interest on the security deposit was also not assessable, because the deposit arose from the same prior arrangement and there was no entitlement to the underlying rent during the relevant period. The disputed lease-related additions were deleted, and the property income was not taxed in the purchaser&#039;s hands.</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=270615</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>