<?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>2012 (5) TMI 136 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213159</link>
    <description>The Court concluded that the surplus realized from the sale of land was classified as capital gains, not business income, affirming the Tribunal&#039;s decision. The Court emphasized that the land was acquired as an investment, with sales motivated by encroachments and litigation, rather than profit-seeking activities. The judgment confirmed that the surplus from the land sale constituted capital gains.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186561" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (5) TMI 136 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213159</link>
      <description>The Court concluded that the surplus realized from the sale of land was classified as capital gains, not business income, affirming the Tribunal&#039;s decision. The Court emphasized that the land was acquired as an investment, with sales motivated by encroachments and litigation, rather than profit-seeking activities. The judgment confirmed that the surplus from the land sale constituted capital gains.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213159</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>