<?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>Retrospective tolerance band and agreement-date indexation defeat property tax additions; unexplained investment remanded for verification</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100111</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the 10% tolerance band under the stamp valuation framework applies retrospectively as a curative measure, so no addition survived where the difference between agreement value and stamp duty value was only 2.3%. It also accepted that indexation of cost for flat allotment rights runs from the date of the agreement, since rights accrued on execution and not from the dates of later instalments, leading to deletion of the recomputed disallowance. For the unexplained investment issue, the Tribunal found factual verification was needed and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer after granting adequate hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2026 08:24:42 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 May 2026 08:24:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=903749" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Retrospective tolerance band and agreement-date indexation defeat property tax additions; unexplained investment remanded for verification</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100111</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the 10% tolerance band under the stamp valuation framework applies retrospectively as a curative measure, so no addition survived where the difference between agreement value and stamp duty value was only 2.3%. It also accepted that indexation of cost for flat allotment rights runs from the date of the agreement, since rights accrued on execution and not from the dates of later instalments, leading to deletion of the recomputed disallowance. For the unexplained investment issue, the Tribunal found factual verification was needed and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer after granting adequate hearing.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2026 08:24:42 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100111</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>