<?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 102 - ITAT SURAT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411757</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the deletion of the entire addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not entitled to apply the provision as the relevant sub-clause was not in effect at the time of the property sale agreement. The decision favored the assessee, emphasizing the timing discrepancy between the agreement and the introduction of the sub-clause.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2021 09:00:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=654577" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (9) TMI 102 - ITAT SURAT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411757</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the deletion of the entire addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not entitled to apply the provision as the relevant sub-clause was not in effect at the time of the property sale agreement. The decision favored the assessee, emphasizing the timing discrepancy between the agreement and the introduction of the sub-clause.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411757</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>