<?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 (9) TMI 1686 - RAJASTHAN  HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273863</link>
    <description>For capital gains purposes, transfer was treated as occurring when possession was delivered in part performance of the agreement to sell under section 2(47)(v) read with section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, so later revised stamp valuation could not be applied retrospectively under section 50C(1). The amendment introducing &quot;assessable&quot; into section 50C was treated as prospective, and the Tribunal&#039;s adoption of a lower valuation for computing capital gains was upheld on the property&#039;s tenancy features and the absence of a departmental valuation reference. The higher stamp-based additions were not sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2018 06:08:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=527289" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 1686 - RAJASTHAN  HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273863</link>
      <description>For capital gains purposes, transfer was treated as occurring when possession was delivered in part performance of the agreement to sell under section 2(47)(v) read with section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, so later revised stamp valuation could not be applied retrospectively under section 50C(1). The amendment introducing &quot;assessable&quot; into section 50C was treated as prospective, and the Tribunal&#039;s adoption of a lower valuation for computing capital gains was upheld on the property&#039;s tenancy features and the absence of a departmental valuation reference. The higher stamp-based additions were not sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273863</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>