<?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>2024 (4) TMI 1109 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751928</link>
    <description>Compensation for compulsory acquisition under a State highways regime was held not to qualify for tax exemption because Section 96 of the 2013 land acquisition law applies only to awards or agreements made under that Act, and exemption cannot be implied without an express statutory grant. The purchaser could not substitute the seller&#039;s stamp valuation as the cost of acquisition, because the Section 50C deeming fiction is confined to the transferor&#039;s capital gains computation and does not replace actual purchase cost. The cost of improvement claim required fresh verification, as the supporting documents did not conclusively establish nexus with the subject land, so that issue was remanded for reassessment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2024 10:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=751395" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (4) TMI 1109 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751928</link>
      <description>Compensation for compulsory acquisition under a State highways regime was held not to qualify for tax exemption because Section 96 of the 2013 land acquisition law applies only to awards or agreements made under that Act, and exemption cannot be implied without an express statutory grant. The purchaser could not substitute the seller&#039;s stamp valuation as the cost of acquisition, because the Section 50C deeming fiction is confined to the transferor&#039;s capital gains computation and does not replace actual purchase cost. The cost of improvement claim required fresh verification, as the supporting documents did not conclusively establish nexus with the subject land, so that issue was remanded for reassessment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751928</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>