<?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>CIT&#039;s Section 263 Order Against AO Overruled: No Fault in Assessee&#039;s Classification of Brand Sales as LTCG.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=30930</link>
    <description>CIT u/s 263 has simply directed the AO, without satisfying himself, to verify whether the bifurcation made by assessee was with a view to reduce tax or not. No infirmity for offering the tax on sale of brands as LTCG. There is no merit in CIT’s observation for treating the same as business income. - AT</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2016 08:41:19 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2016 08:41:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=439190" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>CIT&#039;s Section 263 Order Against AO Overruled: No Fault in Assessee&#039;s Classification of Brand Sales as LTCG.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=30930</link>
      <description>CIT u/s 263 has simply directed the AO, without satisfying himself, to verify whether the bifurcation made by assessee was with a view to reduce tax or not. No infirmity for offering the tax on sale of brands as LTCG. There is no merit in CIT’s observation for treating the same as business income. - AT</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2016 08:41:19 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=30930</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>