<?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>2017 (11) TMI 504 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350625</link>
    <description>Possession receipts and substantial part-payment under unregistered property agreements were treated as sufficient indicators that transfer had concluded in the relevant year for income-tax purposes, even though formal sale deeds were registered later. Applying section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act read with section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and section 17 of the Registration Act, the properties were held to form part of the block of assets, and depreciation under section 32 was allowable because the assessee had dominion and business use. On that basis, reduction of the block and assessment of the resulting gain as short-term capital gain under section 50 were not justified, and the addition was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Nov 2017 16:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=495279" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 504 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350625</link>
      <description>Possession receipts and substantial part-payment under unregistered property agreements were treated as sufficient indicators that transfer had concluded in the relevant year for income-tax purposes, even though formal sale deeds were registered later. Applying section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act read with section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and section 17 of the Registration Act, the properties were held to form part of the block of assets, and depreciation under section 32 was allowable because the assessee had dominion and business use. On that basis, reduction of the block and assessment of the resulting gain as short-term capital gain under section 50 were not justified, and the addition was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350625</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>