<?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>2004 (12) TMI 283 - ITAT AGRA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55002</link>
    <description>A long-term lease that substantially divests possession and enjoyment can constitute a transfer for the house-property deeming rules, and a transfer to a spouse or minor child may attract deemed ownership only to the extent covered by the statutory ambit. Here, the deemed ownership provision applied only to the wife&#039;s share, not the minor son&#039;s share, because the transaction was treated as a transfer for inadequate consideration. For annual value, where the actual rent receivable exceeds the rent at which the property might reasonably be expected to let, section 23(1)(b) requires adoption of the higher actual rent, so the bank rent prevailed over municipal valuation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Nov 2010 16:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93465" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (12) TMI 283 - ITAT AGRA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55002</link>
      <description>A long-term lease that substantially divests possession and enjoyment can constitute a transfer for the house-property deeming rules, and a transfer to a spouse or minor child may attract deemed ownership only to the extent covered by the statutory ambit. Here, the deemed ownership provision applied only to the wife&#039;s share, not the minor son&#039;s share, because the transaction was treated as a transfer for inadequate consideration. For annual value, where the actual rent receivable exceeds the rent at which the property might reasonably be expected to let, section 23(1)(b) requires adoption of the higher actual rent, so the bank rent prevailed over municipal valuation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55002</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>