<?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 (2) TMI 619 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271914</link>
    <description>The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to allow the deduction of Rs. 10,79,82,051/- for development expenses in computing short-term capital gains. The ITAT deemed the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) valid, recognizing it as a document outlining contractual obligations for development work, consistent with similar transactions within the same group. The refund of money to the buyer was considered a legitimate business transaction, not a colorable device. The Tribunal emphasized the principle of real income and the importance of consistency in tax treatment, ultimately dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2016 09:48:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=417138" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 619 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271914</link>
      <description>The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to allow the deduction of Rs. 10,79,82,051/- for development expenses in computing short-term capital gains. The ITAT deemed the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) valid, recognizing it as a document outlining contractual obligations for development work, consistent with similar transactions within the same group. The refund of money to the buyer was considered a legitimate business transaction, not a colorable device. The Tribunal emphasized the principle of real income and the importance of consistency in tax treatment, ultimately dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271914</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>