<?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 (9) TMI 98 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411753</link>
    <description>The ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not apply to the transfer of leasehold rights. Consequently, the computation of Long Term Capital Gain was based on the original sale consideration, not the stamp duty value. The ITAT also allowed the deduction of interest paid to partners, as permitted by the deed of addendum. However, specific details regarding the challenge to the levy of interest under Section 234B were not provided in the summarized judgment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2021 09:00:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=654572" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (9) TMI 98 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411753</link>
      <description>The ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not apply to the transfer of leasehold rights. Consequently, the computation of Long Term Capital Gain was based on the original sale consideration, not the stamp duty value. The ITAT also allowed the deduction of interest paid to partners, as permitted by the deed of addendum. However, specific details regarding the challenge to the levy of interest under Section 234B were not provided in the summarized judgment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411753</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>