<?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>2021 (7) TMI 620 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409778</link>
    <description>The court upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to delete the addition of Long Term Capital Gain in the case of Moolchand HUF. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed as the Tribunal found that there was no evidence of ownership in Moolchand HUF and accepted the income assessment in the hands of the five individuals. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Respondents, emphasizing the lack of proof of ownership in Moolchand HUF and supporting the decision to delete the capital gain addition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2021 10:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=649832" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (7) TMI 620 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409778</link>
      <description>The court upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to delete the addition of Long Term Capital Gain in the case of Moolchand HUF. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed as the Tribunal found that there was no evidence of ownership in Moolchand HUF and accepted the income assessment in the hands of the five individuals. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Respondents, emphasizing the lack of proof of ownership in Moolchand HUF and supporting the decision to delete the capital gain addition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409778</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>