<?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 (11) TMI 64 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334046</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal and allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal. The deemed dividend addition was limited to Rs. 29,80,000/-, the profit from the plot sale was treated as long-term capital gain, the addition for house construction was deleted, and the addition for unrecorded advance payment was also deleted. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decisions on all issues, emphasizing that business advances do not fall under deemed dividend provisions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2016 18:00:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=446505" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 64 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334046</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal and allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal. The deemed dividend addition was limited to Rs. 29,80,000/-, the profit from the plot sale was treated as long-term capital gain, the addition for house construction was deleted, and the addition for unrecorded advance payment was also deleted. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decisions on all issues, emphasizing that business advances do not fall under deemed dividend provisions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334046</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>