<?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 (10) TMI 218 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333198</link>
    <description>A transfer of business assets was not treated as a slump sale because there was no transfer of an ongoing undertaking as a whole, the business had ceased earlier, and separate values were assigned to assets in the rectification deed; the original registered sale deed therefore remained the operative document for capital gains computation. On section 50C, the consideration recorded in the registered sale deed was held to govern, and the later rectification deed could not substitute a lower figure. The DVO valuation did not displace the original deed value for assessment purposes, and the assessee was not entitled to rely on the rectified amount.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Oct 2016 12:28:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=443901" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 218 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333198</link>
      <description>A transfer of business assets was not treated as a slump sale because there was no transfer of an ongoing undertaking as a whole, the business had ceased earlier, and separate values were assigned to assets in the rectification deed; the original registered sale deed therefore remained the operative document for capital gains computation. On section 50C, the consideration recorded in the registered sale deed was held to govern, and the later rectification deed could not substitute a lower figure. The DVO valuation did not displace the original deed value for assessment purposes, and the assessee was not entitled to rely on the rectified amount.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333198</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>