<?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>Court Rules Assumptions Insufficient for Capital Gain Case; Requires Substantial Evidence for Assessing Officer&#039;s Claims.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=36745</link>
    <description>Capital gain computation - ownership on property sold - Merely relying on the assumptions and just because the property was purchased by assessee’s husband, it does not mean that there exists some kind of foul transaction and without bringing on record any cogent material to support the AO’s contention, AO cannot presume facts</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Nov 2017 10:52:54 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Nov 2017 10:52:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=494546" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Court Rules Assumptions Insufficient for Capital Gain Case; Requires Substantial Evidence for Assessing Officer&#039;s Claims.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=36745</link>
      <description>Capital gain computation - ownership on property sold - Merely relying on the assumptions and just because the property was purchased by assessee’s husband, it does not mean that there exists some kind of foul transaction and without bringing on record any cogent material to support the AO’s contention, AO cannot presume facts</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Nov 2017 10:52:54 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=36745</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>