<?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>ITAT Hyderabad rules property sale gains as capital gains, emphasizes consistent treatment for similar Joint Development Agreements.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=77756</link>
    <description>The ITAT Hyderabad addressed the issue of determining the correct head of income for gains on the sale of property, whether it should be classified as business income or capital gains based on the intention of the assessee. The tribunal emphasized the importance of consistency in applying decisions across connected assessees with similar Joint Development Agreements (JDA). The tribunal held that if a co-ordinate Bench had previously ruled in favor of an assessee with rights from the same JDA, the principle should be applied uniformly unless there is a change in law or facts. The Revenue&#039;s inconsistent treatment of assessees in similar situations was deemed unacceptable, as it goes against the principle of certainty and fairness in tax law. .....</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2024 07:06:11 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 26 May 2024 13:05:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=754145" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>ITAT Hyderabad rules property sale gains as capital gains, emphasizes consistent treatment for similar Joint Development Agreements.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=77756</link>
      <description>The ITAT Hyderabad addressed the issue of determining the correct head of income for gains on the sale of property, whether it should be classified as business income or capital gains based on the intention of the assessee. The tribunal emphasized the importance of consistency in applying decisions across connected assessees with similar Joint Development Agreements (JDA). The tribunal held that if a co-ordinate Bench had previously ruled in favor of an assessee with rights from the same JDA, the principle should be applied uniformly unless there is a change in law or facts. The Revenue&#039;s inconsistent treatment of assessees in similar situations was deemed unacceptable, as it goes against the principle of certainty and fairness in tax law. .....</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2024 07:06:11 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=77756</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>