<?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 1244 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412899</link>
    <description>The Revenue&#039;s appeal against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Pune&#039;s decision to tax 50% of the sale consideration received in the relevant year was dismissed. The CIT(A) relied on a previous case and the ITAT Pune Benches&#039; decision, concluding that 50% of the consideration should be charged under capital gains. Emphasizing consistency with past decisions, the court upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s order, highlighting the importance of aligning tax assessments with established principles and precedents.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2021 11:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=657209" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (9) TMI 1244 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412899</link>
      <description>The Revenue&#039;s appeal against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Pune&#039;s decision to tax 50% of the sale consideration received in the relevant year was dismissed. The CIT(A) relied on a previous case and the ITAT Pune Benches&#039; decision, concluding that 50% of the consideration should be charged under capital gains. Emphasizing consistency with past decisions, the court upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s order, highlighting the importance of aligning tax assessments with established principles and precedents.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412899</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>