<?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>1987 (3) TMI 164 - ITAT DELHI-E</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64915</link>
    <description>The tribunal partially allowed the appellant&#039;s appeal, confirming the validity of the reopening proceedings but overturning the taxability of capital gains. It held that the family settlement did not lead to taxable capital gains. Additionally, even if treated as a gift, the transaction was not subject to capital gains tax under section 45 due to section 47(iii).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Feb 2011 11:24:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=103355" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (3) TMI 164 - ITAT DELHI-E</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64915</link>
      <description>The tribunal partially allowed the appellant&#039;s appeal, confirming the validity of the reopening proceedings but overturning the taxability of capital gains. It held that the family settlement did not lead to taxable capital gains. Additionally, even if treated as a gift, the transaction was not subject to capital gains tax under section 45 due to section 47(iii).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64915</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>