https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332922 The ITAT allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, overturning the decision of the CIT(A) on both issues. It held that section 50 did not apply as the building was not a depreciable asset and was used for rental income, not for business purposes. Additionally, the ITAT found that the Assessing Officer's substitution of full value consideration without providing an opportunity to be heard was against natural justice principles. Consequently, the ITAT directed the calculation of long term capital gain on the transfer of the building as claimed by the appellant. en-us Wed, 17 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Sep 2016 18:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332922 The ITAT allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, overturning the decision of the CIT(A) on both issues. It held that section 50 did not apply as the building was not a depreciable asset and was used for rental income, not for business purposes. Additionally, the ITAT found that the Assessing Officer's substitution of full value consideration without providing an opportunity to be heard was against natural justice principles. Consequently, the ITAT directed the calculation of long term capital gain on the transfer of the building as claimed by the appellant. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 17 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332922