<?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 (11) TMI 407 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414626</link>
    <description>Interest disallowance on funds advanced to a director was treated as outside the scope of the remand and remained upheld. Unrecorded scrap sales were sustained as taxable because the books reflected only part of the receipts and the assessee failed to produce reliable reconciliation or evidence. In the property transfer to M/s. Gopalan Enterprises, the Tribunal held that the composite transaction covered land and improvements, while unproved improvement expenses were not allowed; it also directed verification to avoid double taxation of an amount already offered under another head. A registered joint development arrangement with IDEB was held to constitute a transfer in the relevant year because development rights, alienation powers, part payment, and effective possession satisfied part performance principles.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Nov 2021 17:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=660993" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (11) TMI 407 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414626</link>
      <description>Interest disallowance on funds advanced to a director was treated as outside the scope of the remand and remained upheld. Unrecorded scrap sales were sustained as taxable because the books reflected only part of the receipts and the assessee failed to produce reliable reconciliation or evidence. In the property transfer to M/s. Gopalan Enterprises, the Tribunal held that the composite transaction covered land and improvements, while unproved improvement expenses were not allowed; it also directed verification to avoid double taxation of an amount already offered under another head. A registered joint development arrangement with IDEB was held to constitute a transfer in the relevant year because development rights, alienation powers, part payment, and effective possession satisfied part performance principles.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414626</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>