<?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>2018 (2) TMI 1428 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356007</link>
    <description>Questions directed to the chargeability of capital gains on a proposed transfer were not barred by the admissibility proviso, because they did not seek a ruling on valuation or determination of fair market value. The fact that capital gains computation may involve valuation did not, by itself, bring the application within the exclusion for matters requiring FMV determination. An objection based on alleged tax avoidance or profit shifting was treated as speculative and without a present legal basis, so it did not prevent admission of the application. The application was therefore maintainable and admitted for ruling, with any avoidance-related issue left for the merits stage.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Feb 2018 06:42:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=509987" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 1428 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356007</link>
      <description>Questions directed to the chargeability of capital gains on a proposed transfer were not barred by the admissibility proviso, because they did not seek a ruling on valuation or determination of fair market value. The fact that capital gains computation may involve valuation did not, by itself, bring the application within the exclusion for matters requiring FMV determination. An objection based on alleged tax avoidance or profit shifting was treated as speculative and without a present legal basis, so it did not prevent admission of the application. The application was therefore maintainable and admitted for ruling, with any avoidance-related issue left for the merits stage.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356007</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>