<?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>2018 (4) TMI 2009 - ITAT MUMBAI  </title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461323</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as justified due to the assessee&#039;s failure to disclose material facts about the cost of acquisition. The Tribunal found that the lack of disclosure regarding the incurred cost was significant, allowing the reopening beyond four years. Additionally, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the addition under Section 50C, determining that the market value at the time of acquiring ownership rights should be used to compute capital gains, aligning with the precedent set in the Rizvi case. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2025 19:00:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=810151" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 2009 - ITAT MUMBAI  </title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461323</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as justified due to the assessee&#039;s failure to disclose material facts about the cost of acquisition. The Tribunal found that the lack of disclosure regarding the incurred cost was significant, allowing the reopening beyond four years. Additionally, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the addition under Section 50C, determining that the market value at the time of acquiring ownership rights should be used to compute capital gains, aligning with the precedent set in the Rizvi case. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461323</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>