<?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>1988 (7) TMI 129 - ITAT MADRAS-C</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70099</link>
    <description>Amounts paid directly to mortgagees from the sale consideration of mortgaged immovable property were treated as deductible in computing capital gains, because the payments discharged an encumbrance on the property as part of the transfer. Section 48 was applied to allow deduction of expenditure wholly and exclusively connected with the transfer, since the transferor conveyed only the equity of redemption and had no right to receive sums diverted to mortgagees. The diverted amount was not regarded as consideration accruing to the transferor. Section 51 was held inapplicable because it concerns advance money in failed negotiations, not repayment of a mortgage debt.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jul 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:00:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=108452" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (7) TMI 129 - ITAT MADRAS-C</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70099</link>
      <description>Amounts paid directly to mortgagees from the sale consideration of mortgaged immovable property were treated as deductible in computing capital gains, because the payments discharged an encumbrance on the property as part of the transfer. Section 48 was applied to allow deduction of expenditure wholly and exclusively connected with the transfer, since the transferor conveyed only the equity of redemption and had no right to receive sums diverted to mortgagees. The diverted amount was not regarded as consideration accruing to the transferor. Section 51 was held inapplicable because it concerns advance money in failed negotiations, not repayment of a mortgage debt.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jul 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70099</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>