<?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 (6) TMI 356 - ITAT SURAT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753749</link>
    <description>The ITAT Surat quashed reassessment proceedings under section 147 initiated against the assessee for AY 2012-13. Following the Gujarat HC precedent in Chintan Jadavbhai Patel, the tribunal held that capital gains from a transaction executed on 16.08.2010 were taxable in AY 2011-12, not AY 2012-13. Since the impugned capital gain was not taxable in the assessment year under consideration, the assessing officer&#039;s reasons for reopening the assessment were legally unsustainable. The assessee&#039;s appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Jun 2024 07:43:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=755848" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (6) TMI 356 - ITAT SURAT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753749</link>
      <description>The ITAT Surat quashed reassessment proceedings under section 147 initiated against the assessee for AY 2012-13. Following the Gujarat HC precedent in Chintan Jadavbhai Patel, the tribunal held that capital gains from a transaction executed on 16.08.2010 were taxable in AY 2011-12, not AY 2012-13. Since the impugned capital gain was not taxable in the assessment year under consideration, the assessing officer&#039;s reasons for reopening the assessment were legally unsustainable. The assessee&#039;s appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753749</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>