<?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 (8) TMI 903 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331519</link>
    <description>The tribunal, following the principles outlined in Universal Plast Ltd., concluded that the property leased by the assessee retained its commercial nature and therefore the income derived from the lease should be classified as &#039;Income from Business&#039; rather than &#039;Income from House Property.&#039; This decision was based on the property being let out temporarily during a branch office shift, the property not being leased out again after the agreement expired, and judicial precedents supporting the treatment of income from letting out commercial properties as business income. The ruling favored the assessee, with the order issued on 13th July 2016.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2016 13:27:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=439203" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (8) TMI 903 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331519</link>
      <description>The tribunal, following the principles outlined in Universal Plast Ltd., concluded that the property leased by the assessee retained its commercial nature and therefore the income derived from the lease should be classified as &#039;Income from Business&#039; rather than &#039;Income from House Property.&#039; This decision was based on the property being let out temporarily during a branch office shift, the property not being leased out again after the agreement expired, and judicial precedents supporting the treatment of income from letting out commercial properties as business income. The ruling favored the assessee, with the order issued on 13th July 2016.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331519</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>