<?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>2023 (10) TMI 620 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444397</link>
    <description>Section 45(3) applies where land is introduced into a partnership firm as capital contribution and the value is recorded in the firm&#039;s books, so the recorded amount is taken as the consideration for capital gains purposes. The analysis states that this treatment can apply even if the asset was claimed to be stock-in-trade, because the introduction into the firm is treated as a transfer on capital account. It also states that deduction under section 80IB(10) is available only to the undertaking developing and building the housing project, and not to a partner in an individual assessment. The common order therefore sustained the capital gains addition and rejected the deduction claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Oct 2023 13:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=729146" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (10) TMI 620 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444397</link>
      <description>Section 45(3) applies where land is introduced into a partnership firm as capital contribution and the value is recorded in the firm&#039;s books, so the recorded amount is taken as the consideration for capital gains purposes. The analysis states that this treatment can apply even if the asset was claimed to be stock-in-trade, because the introduction into the firm is treated as a transfer on capital account. It also states that deduction under section 80IB(10) is available only to the undertaking developing and building the housing project, and not to a partner in an individual assessment. The common order therefore sustained the capital gains addition and rejected the deduction claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444397</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>