https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284731 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision in favor of the assessee, ruling that the land was held as stock in trade, not a capital asset, and the development agreement did not constitute a transfer under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal also agreed with the deletion of the disallowance of consultancy fees, as the assessee provided supporting documentation and complied with TDS provisions. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s decisions on both issues. en-us Fri, 26 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Dec 2019 10:34:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284731 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision in favor of the assessee, ruling that the land was held as stock in trade, not a capital asset, and the development agreement did not constitute a transfer under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal also agreed with the deletion of the disallowance of consultancy fees, as the assessee provided supporting documentation and complied with TDS provisions. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s decisions on both issues. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 26 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284731