<?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>1996 (9) TMI 192 - ITAT NAGPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70772</link>
    <description>A transfer of land was analysed under the deemed-gift provisions, with emphasis on whether it genuinely implemented earlier agreements and compromise proceedings. The earlier agreements were treated as invalid because they had been made in breach of an injunction, specific performance was time-barred, and the compromise was viewed as independent and colourable; the transfer was therefore regarded as occurring on execution in 1988 with inadequate consideration, attracting the deeming provision. On valuation, the assessment of leased land was upheld because reversionary value could be taken into account, and the appellate authority&#039;s higher valuation with discounts for lease and pre-emption risks required no further interference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2011 11:41:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=109109" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (9) TMI 192 - ITAT NAGPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70772</link>
      <description>A transfer of land was analysed under the deemed-gift provisions, with emphasis on whether it genuinely implemented earlier agreements and compromise proceedings. The earlier agreements were treated as invalid because they had been made in breach of an injunction, specific performance was time-barred, and the compromise was viewed as independent and colourable; the transfer was therefore regarded as occurring on execution in 1988 with inadequate consideration, attracting the deeming provision. On valuation, the assessment of leased land was upheld because reversionary value could be taken into account, and the appellate authority&#039;s higher valuation with discounts for lease and pre-emption risks required no further interference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70772</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>