<?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 524 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333504</link>
    <description>The reassessment proceedings initiated against a deceased person were deemed valid by the Tribunal, as subsequent notices were issued to the legal representative and the assessment order was passed in the representative&#039;s name. The objection raised by the assessee was dismissed. Additionally, the deduction for payment made to hutment dwellers for vacating the premises was allowed by the Tribunal, noting the necessity of cash payments and the impracticality of formal agreements with illegal occupants. The treatment of income from the sale of land as Long Term Capital Gain, instead of business income, was upheld, as the transaction was deemed an investment rather than a business activity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Oct 2016 11:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=444766" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 524 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333504</link>
      <description>The reassessment proceedings initiated against a deceased person were deemed valid by the Tribunal, as subsequent notices were issued to the legal representative and the assessment order was passed in the representative&#039;s name. The objection raised by the assessee was dismissed. Additionally, the deduction for payment made to hutment dwellers for vacating the premises was allowed by the Tribunal, noting the necessity of cash payments and the impracticality of formal agreements with illegal occupants. The treatment of income from the sale of land as Long Term Capital Gain, instead of business income, was upheld, as the transaction was deemed an investment rather than a business activity.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333504</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>