<?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 (11) TMI 395 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210603</link>
    <description>Consideration received for surrender of inheritable tenancy rights was treated as a capital receipt because tenancy rights are capital assets and their surrender ordinarily gives rise to capital, not casual, income. On the facts recorded, there was no termination of the month-to-month tenancy before the agreement, and the payment was made for surrender of tenancy rights. The residuary provision for casual and non-recurring receipts under Section 10(3) therefore did not apply. Taxation, if any, would have to be considered under the capital gains provisions, but the necessary computation of cost of acquisition was not established on the facts found.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=184037" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (11) TMI 395 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210603</link>
      <description>Consideration received for surrender of inheritable tenancy rights was treated as a capital receipt because tenancy rights are capital assets and their surrender ordinarily gives rise to capital, not casual, income. On the facts recorded, there was no termination of the month-to-month tenancy before the agreement, and the payment was made for surrender of tenancy rights. The residuary provision for casual and non-recurring receipts under Section 10(3) therefore did not apply. Taxation, if any, would have to be considered under the capital gains provisions, but the necessary computation of cost of acquisition was not established on the facts found.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210603</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>