https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66601 The Tribunal held that the reduction of the assessee-HUF's share in the firm did not constitute a transfer under section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it was part of a reconstitution where partners had discretion over their shareholdings. The withdrawal of Rs. 1,05,000 by the assessee-HUF upon further reduction of its share did not attract capital gains tax, following precedents from the Andhra Pradesh and Madras High Courts and the Supreme Court's ruling. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the deletion of long-term capital gains from the assessee-HUF's income for the assessment year 1980-81. en-us Tue, 31 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Mar 2011 10:49:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66601 The Tribunal held that the reduction of the assessee-HUF's share in the firm did not constitute a transfer under section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it was part of a reconstitution where partners had discretion over their shareholdings. The withdrawal of Rs. 1,05,000 by the assessee-HUF upon further reduction of its share did not attract capital gains tax, following precedents from the Andhra Pradesh and Madras High Courts and the Supreme Court's ruling. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the deletion of long-term capital gains from the assessee-HUF's income for the assessment year 1980-81. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 31 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66601