<?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>2020 (10) TMI 706 - ITAT AMRITSAR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399732</link>
    <description>Seized land-transaction documents, including an unsigned MOU, may support additions for unexplained investment where payment schedules, registered conveyances, linked agreements and subsequent conduct corroborate that the arrangement was acted upon. Applying surrounding circumstances and human probabilities, the land purchases were treated as real and attributable to the assessee, sustaining the unexplained-investment addition. The subsequent sale to a company and receipt of consideration constituted a taxable transfer, notwithstanding the contention that the assessee lacked legal ownership, because the transactions involved de facto transfer and enabled enjoyment of immovable property. The short-term capital-gain addition was therefore sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2020 13:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=625430" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (10) TMI 706 - ITAT AMRITSAR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399732</link>
      <description>Seized land-transaction documents, including an unsigned MOU, may support additions for unexplained investment where payment schedules, registered conveyances, linked agreements and subsequent conduct corroborate that the arrangement was acted upon. Applying surrounding circumstances and human probabilities, the land purchases were treated as real and attributable to the assessee, sustaining the unexplained-investment addition. The subsequent sale to a company and receipt of consideration constituted a taxable transfer, notwithstanding the contention that the assessee lacked legal ownership, because the transactions involved de facto transfer and enabled enjoyment of immovable property. The short-term capital-gain addition was therefore sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399732</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>