<?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>2006 (12) TMI 258 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119733</link>
    <description>A conditional agreement for transfer of office premises, pending mandatory approval of the Charity Commissioner and remaining subject to possible cancellation and revised consideration, did not effect a transfer in praesenti. Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act was inapplicable because the terms were not finally ascertainable with reasonable certainty and no enforceable ownership rights arose from the agreement alone. Section 2(47)(vi) of the Income-tax Act also did not apply because no additional ownership rights had vested before execution of the deed. The premises therefore could not be treated as a long-term capital asset on the basis of the 1992 agreement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:53:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156729" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (12) TMI 258 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119733</link>
      <description>A conditional agreement for transfer of office premises, pending mandatory approval of the Charity Commissioner and remaining subject to possible cancellation and revised consideration, did not effect a transfer in praesenti. Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act was inapplicable because the terms were not finally ascertainable with reasonable certainty and no enforceable ownership rights arose from the agreement alone. Section 2(47)(vi) of the Income-tax Act also did not apply because no additional ownership rights had vested before execution of the deed. The premises therefore could not be treated as a long-term capital asset on the basis of the 1992 agreement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119733</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>