<?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 1108 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184590</link>
    <description>For a builder and developer, surplus from transfer of land and development rights was treated as business income because the rights were acquired and dealt with as part of business activity, and accrual was held to occur in the year the agreements were executed, registered, and possession was given under the mercantile system. Compensation received on relinquishment of rights in land was characterised as revenue receipt, as it represented loss of future profits and trading advantages rather than destruction of the profit-making structure. On alleged bogus construction-material purchases, the assessee&#039;s failure to produce bills and vouchers meant the disallowance could be enhanced to 75%.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2016 15:05:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=434838" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (10) TMI 1108 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184590</link>
      <description>For a builder and developer, surplus from transfer of land and development rights was treated as business income because the rights were acquired and dealt with as part of business activity, and accrual was held to occur in the year the agreements were executed, registered, and possession was given under the mercantile system. Compensation received on relinquishment of rights in land was characterised as revenue receipt, as it represented loss of future profits and trading advantages rather than destruction of the profit-making structure. On alleged bogus construction-material purchases, the assessee&#039;s failure to produce bills and vouchers meant the disallowance could be enhanced to 75%.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184590</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>