<?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>1983 (9) TMI 136 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65955</link>
    <description>The Tribunal annulled the Commissioner&#039;s revisional order under section 263, finding the ITO&#039;s assessment to be correct and not prejudicial to revenue interests. The Tribunal held that the assessee&#039;s retirement from the partnership without a deed of assignment did not amount to a transfer under section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. As a result, the amount received upon retirement was not subject to capital gains tax liability. The appeal was allowed, and the ITO&#039;s assessment order was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:46:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=104391" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (9) TMI 136 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65955</link>
      <description>The Tribunal annulled the Commissioner&#039;s revisional order under section 263, finding the ITO&#039;s assessment to be correct and not prejudicial to revenue interests. The Tribunal held that the assessee&#039;s retirement from the partnership without a deed of assignment did not amount to a transfer under section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. As a result, the amount received upon retirement was not subject to capital gains tax liability. The appeal was allowed, and the ITO&#039;s assessment order was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65955</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>