<?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 (10) TMI 491 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368525</link>
    <description>Genuineness of land sale, arbitration and buy-back transactions depended on reliable, verifiable evidence. The claimed plot sales were doubtful because the assessee had agreed to develop the land with a collaborator before the purported plots existed. The agreements were unregistered, originals were not produced, and photocopies showed inconsistencies in signatures, witnesses and notarisation. The notary register contained no supporting entries, two counterparties denied the transactions, and one transaction conflicted with the assessee&#039;s earlier statement and surrounding facts. Failure to discharge the burden of proof permitted the arrangements to be treated as colourable or paper transactions, sustaining the corresponding addition or disallowance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=537702" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (10) TMI 491 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368525</link>
      <description>Genuineness of land sale, arbitration and buy-back transactions depended on reliable, verifiable evidence. The claimed plot sales were doubtful because the assessee had agreed to develop the land with a collaborator before the purported plots existed. The agreements were unregistered, originals were not produced, and photocopies showed inconsistencies in signatures, witnesses and notarisation. The notary register contained no supporting entries, two counterparties denied the transactions, and one transaction conflicted with the assessee&#039;s earlier statement and surrounding facts. Failure to discharge the burden of proof permitted the arrangements to be treated as colourable or paper transactions, sustaining the corresponding addition or disallowance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368525</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>