<?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>2025 (1) TMI 366 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764304</link>
    <description>ITAT Kolkata quashed Pr. CIT&#039;s revision order under Section 263 regarding under-assessment of income. The case involved addition under Section 56(2)(x) for differential between stamp duty valuation and purchase price in a Joint Development Agreement. The AO had initially accepted the assessee&#039;s contentions after inquiry. ITAT held that Section 45(5A) conditions for recognizing taxable income were not fulfilled as no completion certificate was obtained. The Pr. CIT&#039;s order was based on unsubstantiated assumptions rather than facts, making the adverse inference unjustified. The revision was therefore quashed in favor of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Jan 2025 08:37:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=787185" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 366 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764304</link>
      <description>ITAT Kolkata quashed Pr. CIT&#039;s revision order under Section 263 regarding under-assessment of income. The case involved addition under Section 56(2)(x) for differential between stamp duty valuation and purchase price in a Joint Development Agreement. The AO had initially accepted the assessee&#039;s contentions after inquiry. ITAT held that Section 45(5A) conditions for recognizing taxable income were not fulfilled as no completion certificate was obtained. The Pr. CIT&#039;s order was based on unsubstantiated assumptions rather than facts, making the adverse inference unjustified. The revision was therefore quashed in favor of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764304</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>