<?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 (10) TMI 84 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759485</link>
    <description>Section 56(2)(x) did not apply to acquisition of the tenancy rights because the arrangement gave only a right to occupy premises on payment of rent and did not transfer ownership or any transferable interest in immovable property. On that legal footing, stamp duty valuation could not be used to sustain the addition. The tenancy rights were therefore not treated as acquisition of property for the impugned tax charge, and the addition was deleted in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Oct 2024 20:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=771478" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (10) TMI 84 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759485</link>
      <description>Section 56(2)(x) did not apply to acquisition of the tenancy rights because the arrangement gave only a right to occupy premises on payment of rent and did not transfer ownership or any transferable interest in immovable property. On that legal footing, stamp duty valuation could not be used to sustain the addition. The tenancy rights were therefore not treated as acquisition of property for the impugned tax charge, and the addition was deleted in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759485</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>