<?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 (4) TMI 792 - ITAT AGRA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358681</link>
    <description>The Tribunal affirmed the Assessing Officer&#039;s calculation of long-term capital gain under section 50C for the sale of a residential property, based on stamp value. The CIT (A) upheld the assessment, emphasizing the correctness of adopting market value for gain calculation. The appellant&#039;s appeal was dismissed as the property&#039;s rate was not proven lower than circle rate. The Tribunal found valuation errors due to the tenant&#039;s occupancy impact. Allegations of forceful sale were considered, leading to a revised valuation. The assessment under sections 148/143(3) and 147 was challenged, resulting in a remittance for fresh consideration. Non-compliance with section 50C requirements necessitated a new assessment for proper valuation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2018 10:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=517075" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 792 - ITAT AGRA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358681</link>
      <description>The Tribunal affirmed the Assessing Officer&#039;s calculation of long-term capital gain under section 50C for the sale of a residential property, based on stamp value. The CIT (A) upheld the assessment, emphasizing the correctness of adopting market value for gain calculation. The appellant&#039;s appeal was dismissed as the property&#039;s rate was not proven lower than circle rate. The Tribunal found valuation errors due to the tenant&#039;s occupancy impact. Allegations of forceful sale were considered, leading to a revised valuation. The assessment under sections 148/143(3) and 147 was challenged, resulting in a remittance for fresh consideration. Non-compliance with section 50C requirements necessitated a new assessment for proper valuation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358681</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>