<?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 (3) TMI 1049 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767663</link>
    <description>Addition of profit from sale of immovable property was held unsustainable where the same chain of transactions had already been taxed in the hands of intermediary parties. The record showed a sequence of agreements and transfer arrangements before the final registered sale deed, and the material before the appellate authorities established that the relevant consideration and profits had been offered to tax by those parties. As the Department produced no contrary evidence to displace that finding, taxing the same profit again in the assessee&#039;s hands would amount to double taxation. The CIT(A)&#039;s reliance on the legal effect of the pre-existing transactions was upheld, and the addition was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Mar 2025 08:34:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=808271" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 1049 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767663</link>
      <description>Addition of profit from sale of immovable property was held unsustainable where the same chain of transactions had already been taxed in the hands of intermediary parties. The record showed a sequence of agreements and transfer arrangements before the final registered sale deed, and the material before the appellate authorities established that the relevant consideration and profits had been offered to tax by those parties. As the Department produced no contrary evidence to displace that finding, taxing the same profit again in the assessee&#039;s hands would amount to double taxation. The CIT(A)&#039;s reliance on the legal effect of the pre-existing transactions was upheld, and the addition was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767663</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>