<?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>1961 (4) TMI 85 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165180</link>
    <description>Interim payments made under section 50 of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 to an ex-zamindar were held to be capital receipts, not taxable income. The landholder&#039;s estate had vested in the Government, and the payment arose only because statutory compensation was being provided in substitution for rights lost on abolition of the estate. The Court treated the real character of the receipt as decisive, rather than the statutory label of &quot;interim payment&quot; or the provision stating it was separate from deposited compensation. As the payment was neither income from the estate nor interest on unpaid compensation, it was not liable to income-tax.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 May 2014 16:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=355904" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1961 (4) TMI 85 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165180</link>
      <description>Interim payments made under section 50 of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 to an ex-zamindar were held to be capital receipts, not taxable income. The landholder&#039;s estate had vested in the Government, and the payment arose only because statutory compensation was being provided in substitution for rights lost on abolition of the estate. The Court treated the real character of the receipt as decisive, rather than the statutory label of &quot;interim payment&quot; or the provision stating it was separate from deposited compensation. As the payment was neither income from the estate nor interest on unpaid compensation, it was not liable to income-tax.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165180</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>