<?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 (10) TMI 526 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217588</link>
    <description>The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal regarding the disallowance of liaison charges against short-term capital gains only. The court upheld the apportionment of liaison charges between short-term and long-term capital gains by the Assessing Authority, emphasizing the importance of factual evidence and documentation. The court found no evidence to suggest the assessee&#039;s contentions were false and criticized the lack of contrary evidence from the revenue department. The judgment highlighted the necessity of concrete proof to support claims and upheld the decisions of the appellate authorities, concluding that no substantial question of law merited admission.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2012 13:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=190963" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (10) TMI 526 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217588</link>
      <description>The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal regarding the disallowance of liaison charges against short-term capital gains only. The court upheld the apportionment of liaison charges between short-term and long-term capital gains by the Assessing Authority, emphasizing the importance of factual evidence and documentation. The court found no evidence to suggest the assessee&#039;s contentions were false and criticized the lack of contrary evidence from the revenue department. The judgment highlighted the necessity of concrete proof to support claims and upheld the decisions of the appellate authorities, concluding that no substantial question of law merited admission.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217588</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>