<?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 (5) TMI 1842 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279179</link>
    <description>A joint development arrangement with a registered power of attorney, transfer of possession, and control over the property was treated as a transfer in part performance under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, attracting capital gains under section 2(47)(v) of the Income-tax Act; the transfer date was taken as 17.09.2012 and the long-term capital gains addition was sustained. Section 45(2) was held inapplicable because the assessee had not converted the land into stock-in-trade and was not carrying on development business. The separate objection that the Assessing Officer should have referred the valuation dispute to the Valuation Officer under section 50C(2) was remitted for fresh adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Mar 2019 06:33:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=561737" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 1842 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279179</link>
      <description>A joint development arrangement with a registered power of attorney, transfer of possession, and control over the property was treated as a transfer in part performance under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, attracting capital gains under section 2(47)(v) of the Income-tax Act; the transfer date was taken as 17.09.2012 and the long-term capital gains addition was sustained. Section 45(2) was held inapplicable because the assessee had not converted the land into stock-in-trade and was not carrying on development business. The separate objection that the Assessing Officer should have referred the valuation dispute to the Valuation Officer under section 50C(2) was remitted for fresh adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279179</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>