<?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 (5) TMI 1939 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771667</link>
    <description>A registered conveyance that expressly records transfer, full consideration, and delivery of possession prevails over an asserted earlier unregistered arrangement. Informal documents such as an unregistered agreement and an unstamped possession letter, supported only by oral assertions, were insufficient to displace the registered sale deed. Applying the rule against contradicting documentary terms by oral evidence under section 91 of the Evidence Act, the earlier alleged transfer was not proved to the required standard. The sale was therefore treated as having occurred on the date of the registered deed, and the addition based on that deed was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 May 2025 16:56:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=825172" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 1939 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771667</link>
      <description>A registered conveyance that expressly records transfer, full consideration, and delivery of possession prevails over an asserted earlier unregistered arrangement. Informal documents such as an unregistered agreement and an unstamped possession letter, supported only by oral assertions, were insufficient to displace the registered sale deed. Applying the rule against contradicting documentary terms by oral evidence under section 91 of the Evidence Act, the earlier alleged transfer was not proved to the required standard. The sale was therefore treated as having occurred on the date of the registered deed, and the addition based on that deed was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771667</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>