<?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>2026 (4) TMI 1404 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790335</link>
    <description>Protective addition of capital gains on sale of land was held unsustainable where the registered sale deed had already been declared void by the civil court for fraud, forged power of attorney and absence of consideration. The revenue was required to establish actual receipt of sale consideration before taxing the assessee, but it made no inquiry from the buyers and brought no cogent evidence of receipt. Mere pendency of the buyers&#039; appeal did not justify a protective addition when the transaction itself stood judicially invalidated. The addition was also defective on merits because the alleged sale consideration was treated as capital gain without examining cost of acquisition. The addition was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2026 17:34:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=897978" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 1404 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790335</link>
      <description>Protective addition of capital gains on sale of land was held unsustainable where the registered sale deed had already been declared void by the civil court for fraud, forged power of attorney and absence of consideration. The revenue was required to establish actual receipt of sale consideration before taxing the assessee, but it made no inquiry from the buyers and brought no cogent evidence of receipt. Mere pendency of the buyers&#039; appeal did not justify a protective addition when the transaction itself stood judicially invalidated. The addition was also defective on merits because the alleged sale consideration was treated as capital gain without examining cost of acquisition. The addition was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790335</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>