<?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 (8) TMI 844 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384655</link>
    <description>Notional annual letting value could not be enhanced mechanically where the assessee substantiated that one bungalow was used for film-direction and writing work, and the factual condition of the other properties did not support a higher rent estimate; the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039; valuation was therefore sustained. Gain on sale of office premises was also correctly assessed as long-term capital gain because the holding period ran from the date of allotment with initial payment, and the actual sale consideration was accepted since the record supported it and stamp duty value was not required to be substituted on these facts. The revenue&#039;s challenge failed in full.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Nov 2024 16:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=584081" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (8) TMI 844 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384655</link>
      <description>Notional annual letting value could not be enhanced mechanically where the assessee substantiated that one bungalow was used for film-direction and writing work, and the factual condition of the other properties did not support a higher rent estimate; the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039; valuation was therefore sustained. Gain on sale of office premises was also correctly assessed as long-term capital gain because the holding period ran from the date of allotment with initial payment, and the actual sale consideration was accepted since the record supported it and stamp duty value was not required to be substituted on these facts. The revenue&#039;s challenge failed in full.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384655</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>