<?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 668 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271963</link>
    <description>Disallowance for tax deduction at source was unsustainable where advance payments for offshore supply of equipment were capital in nature, were not debited to the profit and loss account, and were not chargeable to tax in India; section 40(a)(ia) could not be invoked on those facts. In computing capital gains, the Tribunal accepted reference to valuation principles under section 50C and upheld use of the saleable land area, but rejected an unsupported 15% frontage uplift and directed adoption of the guideline value without that enhancement. The building valuation was left undisturbed because it matched the assessee&#039;s own valuation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2016 10:23:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=417301" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 668 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271963</link>
      <description>Disallowance for tax deduction at source was unsustainable where advance payments for offshore supply of equipment were capital in nature, were not debited to the profit and loss account, and were not chargeable to tax in India; section 40(a)(ia) could not be invoked on those facts. In computing capital gains, the Tribunal accepted reference to valuation principles under section 50C and upheld use of the saleable land area, but rejected an unsupported 15% frontage uplift and directed adoption of the guideline value without that enhancement. The building valuation was left undisturbed because it matched the assessee&#039;s own valuation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271963</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>