<?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>2011 (8) TMI 434 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206752</link>
    <description>A tax recovery sale of leasehold property passes only the defaulter&#039;s existing right, title and interest, so contractual covenants attached to the lease, including payment of unearned increase on transfer, continue to bind the transaction. The court held that the recovery process could not convey a better title than the defaulter held, and the auction purchaser could not ignore the lessor&#039;s entitlement under the perpetual sub-lease. The locus standi objection also did not survive after impleadment of the relevant persons. The demand for unearned increase was therefore upheld for completion of transfer, while the quantification dispute was left open.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2011 07:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=180236" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (8) TMI 434 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206752</link>
      <description>A tax recovery sale of leasehold property passes only the defaulter&#039;s existing right, title and interest, so contractual covenants attached to the lease, including payment of unearned increase on transfer, continue to bind the transaction. The court held that the recovery process could not convey a better title than the defaulter held, and the auction purchaser could not ignore the lessor&#039;s entitlement under the perpetual sub-lease. The locus standi objection also did not survive after impleadment of the relevant persons. The demand for unearned increase was therefore upheld for completion of transfer, while the quantification dispute was left open.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206752</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>