<?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>1993 (10) TMI 348 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168405</link>
    <description>A consent decree that itself transfers immovable property is chargeable to stamp duty if its true effect is an inter vivos conveyance of title. The label given to the document is not decisive; what matters is whether the terms show that ownership is conveyed from one party to another. On that basis, such a decree falls within the wide definitions of both &quot;conveyance&quot; and &quot;instrument&quot; under the Bombay Stamps Act, 1958. The 1985 amendment was treated as confirmatory rather than as showing that such decrees were earlier outside the charging provision, and an earlier charge-creating consent decree was distinguished because it did not transfer title.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Oct 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2015 15:15:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=377066" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (10) TMI 348 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168405</link>
      <description>A consent decree that itself transfers immovable property is chargeable to stamp duty if its true effect is an inter vivos conveyance of title. The label given to the document is not decisive; what matters is whether the terms show that ownership is conveyed from one party to another. On that basis, such a decree falls within the wide definitions of both &quot;conveyance&quot; and &quot;instrument&quot; under the Bombay Stamps Act, 1958. The 1985 amendment was treated as confirmatory rather than as showing that such decrees were earlier outside the charging provision, and an earlier charge-creating consent decree was distinguished because it did not transfer title.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Oct 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168405</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>