<?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 (5) TMI 1640 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380912</link>
    <description>Notional annual value of unsold finished apartments held as stock-in-trade was treated as outside &quot;Income from house property&quot; where the units had been allotted, substantial consideration had been received, and occupancy approval had not yet been granted. The Tribunal reasoned that sections 22 and 23 of the Income-tax Act apply only to property owned by the assessee and capable of being let, and that the developer did not retain ownership in the relevant sense while executing its obligations. It also relied on section 77(2) of the New Town Kolkata Development Authority Act, 2007, which barred occupation before permission or completion approval, and noted that section 23(5) later reinforced this position. The additions were deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 May 2019 11:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=573358" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (5) TMI 1640 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380912</link>
      <description>Notional annual value of unsold finished apartments held as stock-in-trade was treated as outside &quot;Income from house property&quot; where the units had been allotted, substantial consideration had been received, and occupancy approval had not yet been granted. The Tribunal reasoned that sections 22 and 23 of the Income-tax Act apply only to property owned by the assessee and capable of being let, and that the developer did not retain ownership in the relevant sense while executing its obligations. It also relied on section 77(2) of the New Town Kolkata Development Authority Act, 2007, which barred occupation before permission or completion approval, and noted that section 23(5) later reinforced this position. The additions were deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380912</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>