<?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>2010 (2) TMI 861 - ITAT, Delhi</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208624</link>
    <description>The Tribunal corrected a typographical error in the order and removed a direction to levy short-term capital gain on the transfer of trade mark and design due to indeterminable costs, following the decision in the case of B.C. Srinivasa Setty. The Tribunal found that the consideration specified in the agreement did not represent the actual cost, leading to the modification of the order and the allowance of the assessee&#039;s miscellaneous application.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=182086" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (2) TMI 861 - ITAT, Delhi</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208624</link>
      <description>The Tribunal corrected a typographical error in the order and removed a direction to levy short-term capital gain on the transfer of trade mark and design due to indeterminable costs, following the decision in the case of B.C. Srinivasa Setty. The Tribunal found that the consideration specified in the agreement did not represent the actual cost, leading to the modification of the order and the allowance of the assessee&#039;s miscellaneous application.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208624</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>