<?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>1982 (2) TMI 162 - ITAT MADRAS-D</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70465</link>
    <description>The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was an investor in the shares in question, and the surplus from the sale of shares to the subsidiary company was a capital gain exempt under Section 47(iv) of the Income Tax Act. The department&#039;s appeal was dismissed, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals) order. The Tribunal found no evidence to support the Income Tax Officer&#039;s classification of the transaction as an adventure in the nature of trade or as a business asset.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 27 Feb 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Apr 2011 13:06:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=108810" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (2) TMI 162 - ITAT MADRAS-D</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70465</link>
      <description>The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was an investor in the shares in question, and the surplus from the sale of shares to the subsidiary company was a capital gain exempt under Section 47(iv) of the Income Tax Act. The department&#039;s appeal was dismissed, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals) order. The Tribunal found no evidence to support the Income Tax Officer&#039;s classification of the transaction as an adventure in the nature of trade or as a business asset.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 27 Feb 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70465</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>