<?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>2003 (1) TMI 698 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173376</link>
    <description>Maturity proceeds of Indira Vikas Patra were treated as a return of the depositor&#039;s money after a fixed period, not as consideration for transfer of a capital asset. As no transfer within section 45(1) read with section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 occurred, no capital gain or capital loss arose. The claim for indexed cost of acquisition under Explanation (iii) to section 48 therefore also failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2016 17:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=397184" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (1) TMI 698 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173376</link>
      <description>Maturity proceeds of Indira Vikas Patra were treated as a return of the depositor&#039;s money after a fixed period, not as consideration for transfer of a capital asset. As no transfer within section 45(1) read with section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 occurred, no capital gain or capital loss arose. The claim for indexed cost of acquisition under Explanation (iii) to section 48 therefore also failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173376</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>