<?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>Appellate enhancement cannot introduce a fresh income source; joint development receipts were business deposits, not deemed dividend.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99085</link>
    <description>Section 251(1) enhancement power was confined to matters or sources of income considered by the Assessing Officer; the CIT(A) could not introduce a fresh issue by reducing work-in-progress on a point never examined in assessment, so the enhancement was invalid and reversed. Receipts under the joint development arrangement were treated as security deposits and business receipts, not loans or advances, and deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) could be taxed only in the hands of a shareholder; as the assessee was neither a registered nor beneficial shareholder, the addition was deleted. For the joint development agreement, the asset was stock-in-trade and income had to be measured by the consideration actually receivable under the arrangement, not by stamp duty value of the entire land parcel, so the protective addition for alleged extra consideration was affirmed as deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2026 11:01:15 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2026 11:01:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=898053" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Appellate enhancement cannot introduce a fresh income source; joint development receipts were business deposits, not deemed dividend.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99085</link>
      <description>Section 251(1) enhancement power was confined to matters or sources of income considered by the Assessing Officer; the CIT(A) could not introduce a fresh issue by reducing work-in-progress on a point never examined in assessment, so the enhancement was invalid and reversed. Receipts under the joint development arrangement were treated as security deposits and business receipts, not loans or advances, and deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) could be taxed only in the hands of a shareholder; as the assessee was neither a registered nor beneficial shareholder, the addition was deleted. For the joint development agreement, the asset was stock-in-trade and income had to be measured by the consideration actually receivable under the arrangement, not by stamp duty value of the entire land parcel, so the protective addition for alleged extra consideration was affirmed as deleted.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2026 11:01:15 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99085</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>