<?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>2022 (1) TMI 1424 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312946</link>
    <description>The ITAT Delhi ruled on capital gains from equity share sales, determining that leasehold interest value must be included in fair market value calculations for shares as of 1.4.1981. The tribunal found that despite land title remaining with a J&amp;amp;K resident due to state laws, the company held substantial leasehold rights with 32 years remaining, constituting a valuable asset. The court upheld agricultural income claims where the assessee provided supporting documentation, despite no prior agricultural income declarations. Reassessment proceedings were deemed invalid as the income had already been offered for tax, and the AO exceeded jurisdiction by adding capital gains not specified in the reopening grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Mar 2024 17:15:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=747089" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (1) TMI 1424 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312946</link>
      <description>The ITAT Delhi ruled on capital gains from equity share sales, determining that leasehold interest value must be included in fair market value calculations for shares as of 1.4.1981. The tribunal found that despite land title remaining with a J&amp;amp;K resident due to state laws, the company held substantial leasehold rights with 32 years remaining, constituting a valuable asset. The court upheld agricultural income claims where the assessee provided supporting documentation, despite no prior agricultural income declarations. Reassessment proceedings were deemed invalid as the income had already been offered for tax, and the AO exceeded jurisdiction by adding capital gains not specified in the reopening grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312946</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>