<?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>2019 (4) TMI 347 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377903</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside lower authorities&#039; orders and deleting the addition by the Assessing Officer. It criticized the State machinery for not addressing the fraudulent actions and emphasized responsible action by authorities. The Tribunal noted the distress sale circumstances and deemed the application of Section 50C unjust, ruling that the sale consideration disclosed in the deed should be considered the market value for computing capital gain.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2019 09:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=565692" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 347 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377903</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside lower authorities&#039; orders and deleting the addition by the Assessing Officer. It criticized the State machinery for not addressing the fraudulent actions and emphasized responsible action by authorities. The Tribunal noted the distress sale circumstances and deemed the application of Section 50C unjust, ruling that the sale consideration disclosed in the deed should be considered the market value for computing capital gain.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377903</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>