<?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 (8) TMI 1926 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286110</link>
    <description>A partner&#039;s retirement receipt was held not taxable as long-term capital gains where the record showed a genuine partnership, including a written deed, capital contribution by both partners, a firm bank account, execution of development documents in the firm&#039;s name, and arbitration proceedings recognising both as partners. The claim that the firm never existed was rejected on these facts. The receipt arose on retirement from the firm and not from any individual transfer or relinquishment of rights in the development property, because those rights belonged to the firm. The capital gains addition was therefore unsustainable, and the deletion of the addition was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Feb 2020 18:57:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=603665" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 1926 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286110</link>
      <description>A partner&#039;s retirement receipt was held not taxable as long-term capital gains where the record showed a genuine partnership, including a written deed, capital contribution by both partners, a firm bank account, execution of development documents in the firm&#039;s name, and arbitration proceedings recognising both as partners. The claim that the firm never existed was rejected on these facts. The receipt arose on retirement from the firm and not from any individual transfer or relinquishment of rights in the development property, because those rights belonged to the firm. The capital gains addition was therefore unsustainable, and the deletion of the addition was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286110</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>